***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
==============================================================
IF THESE EXIT POLLS ARE RIGHT THERESA MAY IS TOAST.
(God help the U.K)
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 11 Jun 17 at 19:42
|
>> IF THESE EXIT POLLS ARE RIGHT THERESA MAY IS TOAST.
>> (God help the U.K)
And its all your fault.
|
She believed the pre election decision polls,giving her a massive lead.
She thought she could not lose.
Blame the pollsters, not me!
|
|
I blame it on the Russians
|
Far too early to tell.
Postal voters not polled.
Youngsters turned away from Newcastle under Lyme.
Conservative vote seems to be up, even in the Labour strongholds.
|
>> Youngsters turned away from Newcastle under Lyme.
Wassat about?
|
>> Wassat about?
Late arrivals at poll?
Voter registration SNAFU?
|
>>(God help the UK)
I think that phrase has been well used since the Brexit vote
|
Tonight's winner is hubris.
You'd think they'd have learned after Cammo's disaster.
|
TM had the ball at her feet & was the only person who knew she would call the election.
She trots out a manifesto that was weak / vague in what was to happen re Pensions, Social Care, lots of key points not tied down & then proceded to carry out a lacklustre performance. Definitely a 3rd Class Peformance rather than the polished performance that many expected.
Jeremy on the other hand came out of the traps believing he could sway the young (Uni Free) Pensioners (Pension rises), "unlimited funds" for NHS,................something for free & somebody else will pay. He mobilised many of the new young voters & brought back others. who had strayed.
Whatever happens in the coming hours TM's hold on the Leader of the Conservatives must be extremely shaky even although she might still have the most seats.
|
Reminds me of 1974.. that was fun.. not..
Mrs May is not a third rate politician as I once thought.. She is clearly fourth rate.
|
|
I've woken up to find myself in the land of the magic money tree.
|
In words of Dutch politician involved in Brexit:
Cameron gambled, lost. May gambled, lost. Tory party beginning to look like a casino.
|
|
Looks like the exit polls were spot on. I wonder who'll be the PM on Monday?
|
Seven Sinn Fein MPs. Might they decide to drop abstention policy and take their seats?
An alternative oath to Speaker and Parliament rather then Queen?
|
The people didn't like hubris.
Tim Farron - "Britain is a divided country... calling referendums and elections to suit your party is something to be avoided".
I don't see how Labour can form a government and it appears to be rejecting a coalition, possibly because it would be difficult to bring about anyway. The Tories might give it a go with the DUP.
May is playing the "I will ensure stability" card but it's difficult to see her hanging on for long.
The Tories increased their votes by c. 2m, but given that they must have scooped almost double that from defecting Kippers and picked up dozen seats in Scotland, they have surely been deserted by a lot of former supporters. Many who remained "loyal" were more anti-Corbyn than pro-May IMO.
We now need some mature behaviour from our elected representatives.
|
"We now need some mature behaviour"
I love a bit of mature.
|
>> I love a bit of mature.
>>
Subtitles on BBC News a moment ago -
John McDonnell: "We have not got a naughty, which I deeply regret".
|
>> In words of Dutch politician involved in Brexit:
>>
>> Cameron gambled, lost. May gambled, lost. Tory party beginning to look like a casino.
>>
It weakens our negotiating position so it's looking like a hard Brexit after all.
Hardly what the anti-Brexit Stop the Tories campaigners wanted.
I don't think the Tories are the only ones who have gambled and lost.
|
|
I'm not so sure. Does the EU want a hard Brexit? I don't think so. The DUP probably doesn't either.
|
>> I'm not so sure. Does the EU want a hard Brexit? I don't think so.
>> The DUP probably doesn't either.
Neither do the newly elected Scottish Conservatives.
|
And neither do a good many conservative MPs. May had this election to ensure that she had a large majority that the remainers within her ranks couldn't cause trouble and were effectively neutralised.
She has achieved the exact opposite. The only way forward is a more conciliatory approach to those seekin a softer stance I.e remaining in the single market.
|
>> The only way forward is a more conciliatory approach to those seekin a softer stance I.e >> remaining in the single market.
>>
I think you are right CG, I would like to see a little more considerate politics over the coming months, not necessarily staying in the single market, but a visibly less aggressive, more willing to listen and compromise a little
|
The general election has ended in a hung Parliament, meaning no party has overall majority. So what happens now?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40209087
|
"So what happens now?"
We could try giving the vote to 3-year olds in order to get a substantial Labour majority.
|
What I learnt
=========
1. TM gambled and lost.
2. Brexit is in jeopardy - especially if Labour forms governement they will either [a] backtrack on Brexit or [b] dilute it such a way that it would worse than being inside EU e.g. no control on freedom of movement and trade barrier imposed etc.
3. DUP is suddenly very important party.
4. Farage = UKIP
5. Scotland is staying in UK in foreseen future.
What I can't figure out
===============
6. Where the UKIP votes gone? Looks like they went to Labour than Conservative.
7. Looking at UK result map, geographically Conservative win spread all over the country whereas Labour wins are concentrated (albeit with areas with high population). Why is that?
8. Labour won heavily in London - where people usually earn much more than rest of the country and I thought they would have voted Tories than Labour.
9. What exactly made Labour gain so much ground? Is it their policy of no tuition fee etc. or more like May's self-pride?
10. What will happen now?
|
>> What I can't figure out
>> ===============
>>
>> 6. Where the UKIP votes gone? Looks like they went to Labour than Conservative.
UKIP was a one trick pony led by a one man band. It's achieved it's aim.
>> 7. Looking at UK result map, geographically Conservative win spread all over the country whereas
>> Labour wins are concentrated (albeit with areas with high population). Why is that?
Twas always case. Labour votes concentrate in the industrial/former industrial areas.
>> 8. Labour won heavily in London - where people usually earn much more than rest
>> of the country and I thought they would have voted Tories than Labour.
You don't know London very well do you.
>> 9. What exactly made Labour gain so much ground? Is it their policy of no
>> tuition fee etc. or more like May's self-pride?
She fought a crap campaign based on her personality. Corbyn ran a dignified one based on policy.
>> 10. What will happen now?
We live in interesting times.
>>
>>
>>
|
>>Looking at UK result map, geographically Conservative win spread all over the country
>> whereas Labour wins are concentrated (albeit with areas with high population). Why is that?
>>
>> Twas always case. Labour votes concentrate in the industrial/former industrial areas.
>>
Labour were the main party in Scotland not so long ago, despite the disappointing national vote the Tories have won 13 seats in Scotland, and are only 8% behind the SNP up there, so now can truly claim to be one nation.
|
>> despite the disappointing national vote
It is still not that bad for Tories. They are only 7-8 seats short of majority and can reach the magic number with help from just one party (e.g. DUP).
Labour, on other hand, while gained seats, is still 65 seats short of forming a majority.
Rather than focussing on overall result, may be people justed focussed how much Tories lost and Labour gained (which made Labour appear like a winner).
|
|
Look where their seats are HC none in the central lowlands, the "industrial" part of Scotland
|
>> What I learnt
>> =========
>> What I can't figure out
>> ===============
>>
>> 6. Where the UKIP votes gone? Looks like they went to Labour than Conservative.
Nearly 4 million IIRC and I think most must have gone to the Tories with their hard Brexit line. The Tories actually increased their votes by 2 million, but I'd guess that they lost the other 2 million from their own previous supporters (in big round numbers)
>> 7. Looking at UK result map, geographically Conservative win spread all over the country whereas
>> Labour wins are concentrated (albeit with areas with high population). Why is that?
It's always been the cases that Labour did well in cities and conurbations, and the shires were Tory. However labour's gains weren't evenly spread. Marr did some charting on the marginal seats targeted by Labour - Labour gains were greater in areas that voted Remain, and less in Leave strongholds. Labour are clearly understood to be softer on Brexit.
>> 8. Labour won heavily in London - where people usually earn much more than rest
>> of the country and I thought they would have voted Tories than Labour.
Cities again, and demographics. Also, higher wages does not equal better off with sky high property values.
>>
>> 9. What exactly made Labour gain so much ground? Is it their policy of no
>> tuition fee etc. or more like May's self-pride?
I'd guess a better turnout of younger people, some of it down to 'bribery' like the tuition fees no doubt, also the high level of activity on social media.
>> 10. What will happen now?
See BBC link I posted under that question; I think May will struggle on for a while, but she must come a cropper at some point (possibly very soon) being hostage to some of her own party and the DUP.
What happens then depends on whether there is another election. Under the Fixed Term Parliament carry-on, the Conservatives (or whoever) would need a 2/3 majority in parliament to have another go. Labour might not support that and might demand a go as a minority government. I would say it's a certainty that May will not be allowed to fight another election as PM, and the party will only wait long enough to get its ducks in some sort of a row before throwing her out.
|
>> >> 6. Where the UKIP votes gone? Looks like they went to Labour than Conservative.
>>
>> Nearly 4 million IIRC and I think most must have gone to the Tories with
>> their hard Brexit line. The Tories actually increased their votes by 2 million, but I'd
>> guess that they lost the other 2 million from their own previous supporters (in big
>> round numbers)
>>
I reckon 2/3 went to Labour and 1/3 to the Tories in very broad terms though there is very little by way of a trend, with massive variances in share and change from constituency to constituency.
|
May called the election for 4 reasons.
Increase her mandate at Brexit negotiations FAIL
Consolidate her leadership within the party FAIL
Marginalise the Labour Party FAIL
Kill Indyref2 TICK
End of School Report
25%
Tries hard but is clearly not suited to her current role.
This was, without question, the worse Tory Party election campaign I have ever lived through.
The SNP now realise however that a: Independence is not a universal wish of the Jockish people, b: They are not all wildly keen about joining Europe at any cost when they do.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 09:31
|
BoJo for PM...that would get some confidence back in the party from UKIP voters.
TM lost the election majority she thought she would get because she centred it all around her as a person, not the party.
She ducked out of discussion, appeared wooden when interviewed and has the charisma of a duck.
As for where the UKIP voters went, I still voted for UKIP.
I would never vote Labour and until a couple of weeks ago I was prepared to vote Tory until she started doing U-turns, introducing a 'Dementia' tax and talking about repealing the hunting ban.
None of those alone was what decided me but looking at them collectively, anyone who can misjudge timing as badly as that is either incompetent or arrogantly confident.
In short, I no longer trusted her to carry out what she repeatedly told us she would do.
Pat
|
>> BoJo for PM...that would get some confidence back in the party from UKIP voters.
I always knew UKIP voters were stark raving bonkers.
BoJo for PM? have you lost any sense you you were born with woman? Is your rabid desire to dump Europe so bad that you wish to inflict a foppish buffoon and a clown on us as PM? A guy who was so too faced that he waited till the last moment to see how the leadership race was going before he decided he had convictions about Europe?
< shakes head in bewilderment >
|
>> a foppish buffoon and a clown on us as PM<<
A buffoon who has long been underestimated.
He's a very, clever, well educated, multi-lingual buffoon who like to be thought of as an idiot.
That way he has the upper edge on his enemies.
He has charisma, and as we've seen, people vote for the person, not the party these days, specially when the whole campaign was about the person.
An example is Nige, now he's gone what's happened to UKIP?
More than anything to make people vote, and more to the point, vote for you, it is important that they like you, feel that you are in touch with them and care passionately.
I've not seen any of that recently.
........and I'm representative of all those UKIP voters remember?:)
Pat
|
>> ........and I'm representative of all those UKIP voters remember?:)
That is all too apparent.
|
A wise Politician would have seriously considered that before now.
No-one made any effort to gain the votes of UKIP voters other than to say 'vote for TM and get Brexit'
We've been telling you all for years that Brexit and immigration are not by far the only reason we vote UKIP but no-one want to listen to what they don't want to hear, I'm afraid.
Pat
|
> No-one made any effort to gain the votes of UKIP voters other than to say
>> 'vote for TM and get Brexit'
It would seem it's worked though, far fewer people voted for ukip this time around.
>>
>> We've been telling you all for years that Brexit and immigration are not by far
>> the only reason we vote UKIP but no-one want to listen to what they don't
>> want to hear, I'm afraid.
Looking at the numbers its hard to draw any other conclusion. Many voted for one particular thing, and now they are no longer required.
|
>> >> a foppish buffoon and a clown on us as PM<<
>> He has charisma, and as we've seen, people vote for the person, not the party
>> these days, specially when the whole campaign was about the person.
>>
>> An example is Nige, now he's gone what's happened to UKIP?
>>
Another example is Ruth Davidson in Scotland. She got her party 28%+ and in to second place there is a big achievement for Tories.
Scotland - Party %
SNP Scottish National Party 36.9%
CON Conservative 28.6%
LAB Labour 27.1%
LD Liberal Democrat 6.8%
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 10:19
|
>> Another example is Ruth Davidson in Scotland. She got her party 28%+ and in to
>> second place there is a big achievement for Tories.
Sturgeon did that.
|
>> Sturgeon did that.
Sturgeon did to Davidson what May did to Corbyn, i.e. concentrated on one subject, ignored the other factors and left the goal wide open.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 12:48
|
>> Sturgeon did that.
>>
Yes.
My point is that it was Davidson (on behalf of Tories who are supposedly un-electable in Scotland) who mopped up the SNP deserters. Tradiionally it would have been Labour who would have gained most if not all of the SNP seats.
|
With the best will in the world Pat, Boris does not have the breadth of appeal to be a prime minister. As Theresa has discovered, and as we saw last night, one subject politics does not work.
It is not all about Brexit, sure it's important but people are worried about the NHS, education, pensions. A prime minister, or a campaign leader has to be able to lead across the piece, and that is not Boris, much as I actually like and respect him as a politician.
|
>> ........and I'm representative of all those UKIP voters remember?:)
>>
>> Pat
Not really - the vast majority who voted UKIP in 2015 didn't this time.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 10:32
|
>> >> ........and I'm representative of all those UKIP voters remember?:)
>> >>
>> >> Pat
>>
>> Not really - the vast majority who voted UKIP in 2015 didn't this time.
>>
Yes, about one in eleven UKIP voters from 2015 remained loyal (1.85% overall share of vote this time, lost 10.79% from 2015 who deserted mainly to Labour).
|
>> vast majority who voted UKIP in 2015 didn't this time
1. UKIP didn't field candidates in all constituencies this time. They expected votes would go to Tories.
2. Since UKIP had no chance of forming govt. people mostly thought of making Tories stronger for Brexit to happen.
|
>> 1. UKIP didn't field candidates in all constituencies this time. They expected votes would go
>> to Tories.
>> 2. Since UKIP had no chance of forming govt. people mostly thought of making Tories
>> stronger for Brexit to happen.
That is my assumption.
|
>>Is your rabid desire to dump Europe so bad that you wish to inflict a foppish buffoon and a clown on us as PM
If Pat had a rabid desire to dump the EU, she would have voted Conservative - like I did.
|
"BoJo for PM...that would get some confidence back in the party from UKIP voters."
If true, that says something about UKIP voters. The bloke is genial enough and good for a laugh but is already way beyond his capabilities.
I mostly agree with you re May but I can't see who might take over. She was best of a bad bunch last time round...
|
What I found fascinating, was how the Labour Party (not the grass roots, the parliamentary one) worked their election machine on Corbyn.
Corbyn made to look genial and benign, The Anti trident stance gone, shoot to kill policy endorsed, smart new suites, crisp white shirts and ties appeared, Abbot kicked into the long grass,
He suddenly started looking very much like Blair.
|
It strikes me, looking at some of the analysis from last night that there is a large part of the population, including many young, intelligent and naive who don't see a need for austerity or balancing the budget and see nothing wrong with borrowing money so that it can be spent on the NHS, schools etc.
Some of us are old enough to know better but how do we convince those who happily trooped in to vote for more borrowing and more spending in their thousands yesterday.
|
>>
>> a large part of the population, including many young, intelligent and naive who don't see
>> a need for austerity or balancing the budget and see nothing wrong with borrowing money
>> but how do we convince those
>> who happily trooped in to vote for more borrowing and more spending in their thousands
>> yesterday.
>>
Simple answer - don't bother trying to change their minds. Win the election and give them what they want. Borrow the money. The old fogeys can enjoy the fruits of the borrowing. By the time the "young, intelligent and naive" realise they are the one who will be paying for it in their forties and fifities, the old fogeys will be long dead. Corbyn knows that. He won't be around to answer for his spending plans when the lenders come calling in 30 years time asking for their money. In any case the nation will be bankrupt so the lenders won't get their money back (see Iceland and Greece).
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 10:26
|
>> Simple answer - don't bother trying to change their minds. Win the election and give
>> them what they want. Borrow the money. The old fogeys can enjoy the fruits of
>> the borrowing.
>>
except that with all the borrowing and spending, not to mention the nationalisation and the increased union power, comes inflation and nobody wins out of that.
Real pay goes down, savings are wiped out and it's pain for everybody.
|
>> Real pay goes down, savings are wiped out and it's pain for everybody
With open door immigration, the NHS, schools, infrastructure etc. will always struggle. Then they will invite more people to prop the aged generation and the cycle will continue.
|
>> except that with all the borrowing and spending, not to mention the nationalisation and the
>> increased union power, comes inflation and nobody wins out of that.
>> Real pay goes down, savings are wiped out and it's pain for everybody.
>>
Just borrow more to pay more benefits to everyone regardless of age or income (except of course the richest 5% that Corbyn said would be made to pay higher taxes), free food for all, free TV licences, free movement of people from the whole world, free gas and electricity, free sex, ....
You can't go wrong. You'll win 95% of the vote (leaving 5% of higher tax payers to vote UKIP).
[ /s ]
|
and see nothing wrong with borrowing money
In fairness the cons haven't exactly been shy about spending money.
|
>> In fairness the cons haven't exactly been shy about spending money.
>>
What? Are you telling me that all that talk about austerity under Tories for last 7 years was Labour lies?
I do agree with you though; Tories were promising to be a party that borrows £1billion each month to give it away in foreign (while hungry nurses here are told to go food bank and while young homeless people sleep in the streets, and then tell old people that they will have to sell their homes to pay a dementia tax).
[ /s ]
|
What? Are you telling me
I'm saying that for all the talk of labour planning to borrow large sums of money the cons have borrowed plenty themselves.
|
>> tell old people that they will have to sell their homes to pay a dementia
>> tax).
>>
no, they were trying to let people keep 100k, the current state is that you can be left with far less than the 100k the tories proposed.
It needs to be sorted, maybe the tory proposal wasn't the right answer but the way it is now is even worse.
|
>> no, they were trying to let people keep 100k, the current state is that you
>> can be left with far less than the 100k the tories proposed.
>> It needs to be sorted, maybe the tory proposal wasn't the right answer but the
>> way it is now is even worse.
As ever, what she said is what they heard. She made a hash of it.
There is a very logical case that "benefits" are for people who can't support themselves, and that those with means should pay.
The debate however is around what should and should not be universal benefits. People with means tend to believe that they have paid into a system that should give them some benefits in return, the state pension and the NHS being obvious and (for now) uncontroversial examples.
The lottery as to who needs care and who gets to leave their house / savings to their children is widely regarded as unfair. As CGN said a couple of weeks ago, many people might think it fairer to spread that burden more widely, even if it means a hypothecated element of income tax, wealth tax, or NI to cover it. I'd be very happy not to need the care and also to be relieved of the worry that I might not be able to help my children when I croak.
|
>> In short, I no longer trusted her to carry out what she repeatedly told us
>> she would do.
Those who were hoping for a thumping Conservative win should console themselves that they will at least get rid of a liability for their party and the country with the probable demise and certain fencing in of the Maybot.
First mistake was to call an election on the premise that the electorate would obligingly fall into line. By doing so she not only out some backs up but created a platform for Corbyn to rehabilitate himself, of which he made a brilliant job.
Not content with that, she then got up as many noses among her own supporters as possible by reviving the prospect of foxhunting mit hunde, creating a scare around long term care for the elderly, binning the triple lock, and saying she would means test winter fuel payments, all of which took a chunk out of her putative majority.
Her haughty and aggressive stance towards the EU undermined her credibility as a negotiator.
She declined properly to acknowledge the desperate situation in the NHS or make proposals to deal with it at the same time as committing to further reductions on corporation tax, appearing to limit continued austerity to the less well off.
She sent a pompous and self-aggrandising letter to every elector with no policy in it, just "strong and stable" and a personal attack on Corbyn whose name was mentioned 10 times.
That was hubris, lack of political nous, lack of ability. Better out than in.
|
>> That was hubris, lack of political nous, lack of ability. Better out than in.
Without the Brexit flavour, the Tories would have lost to Labour because of the TM behaved in last few weeks. Tories should feel lucky that it is Brexit which saved them from complete car crash.
Personally I'd prefer TM to go and PM role taken up someone who publically supported Leave side.
|
>> First mistake was to call an election on the premise that the electorate would obligingly
>> fall into line.
>>
She got the predicted 42%+
>> By doing so she not only out some backs up but created
>> a platform for Corbyn to rehabilitate himself, of which he made a brilliant job.
>>
That was the surprise she didn't expect.
>> That was hubris, lack of political nous, lack of ability. Better out than in.
>>
Her chief manifesto-writer (Ben Gummer) lost his safe Tory seat in Ipswich. Her other manifesto contributors, "Nick and Fi" who had kept her isolated from her party, need to go to.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4587002/Theresa-faces-bleak-future-nightmare-election.html
"'Is it the end of the Nick and Fi show? Everybody wants it to be but she [Theresa May] is very stubborn.'"
"'Manifestos are usually apple pie and ice cream. Instead we got three spoonfuls of a***nic and – surprise surprise – people didn't like it.'"
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 12:03
|
>>BoJo for PM...that would get some confidence back in the party from UKIP voters.
Just in case anyone needs a reminder of what sort of man the real 'Bojo' is:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair
|
With just one result left to declare (Kensington & Chelsea), this is the state of the parties:
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017
party, seats, gain, loss, net votes, share (%),change (%)
Tories, 318, 20, 32, -12, 13,650,918, 42.45%, +5.52%
Labour, 261, 36, 5, +31, 12,858,644, 39.98%, +9.53%
By the usual measures,
42% plus for Tories is a remarkable result, and would in the past have given them a thumping majority of seats. May has improved Tory share by 5.5%
Nearly 40% for labour is remarkable result, and in the past has given them a thumping majority of seats. Corbyn has improved Labour share by 9.5%.
Elephant not in the room is UKIP.
|
Theresa May will visit Buckingham Palace at 12:30 BST to seek permission to form a UK government, despite losing her Commons majority.
UKIP's Paul Nuttall has stood down as leader of the party after it failed to win any seats in the general election.
He has resigned with immediate effect, leaving Pete Whittle, London Assembly member, as acting leader.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/nigel-farage-hints-return-politics-fearing-labour-led-coalition/
|
Somebody just said every election means Nigel Farage either resigning or becoming leader of UKIP, sometimes both. Brillo pad I think.
Farage said if Brexit looks imperilled, he would have to come back to front line politics. Stand by. I don't think they have anybody else.
|
We held our noses and voted for our local Tory as she was a strong Brexiteer. Several of our UKIP branch members worked hard campaigning for her. We did not stand a candidate locally, as we thought a strong Brexiteer was a better bet than our self serving Labour M.P. He was re-elected but with a majority reduced by about 3000.
For me, we in UKIP have to sit down and have a re-think as clearly we are currently completely banjaxed.
The only bright spot in these results is that The Cleggster lost his seat in Sheffield.
|
>> The only bright spot in these results is that The Cleggster lost his seat in
>> Sheffield.
>>
Not forgetting the great McSalmond up north, not sorry he's gone.
The next interesting thing will be whether we see the new JC for the coming months or whether he will revert to the scruffy, less controlled version we saw at times in the last couple of years.
He really was a bit of a revelation during his campaign, well groomed, quiet, reasonable. If I hadn't read his manifesto and known where he was aiming at I might have been convinced.
|
Ian Paisley will be looking down (or up?) & smiling.
His DUP will be able to exact more than a pound of flesh from last night.
|
My summary is that it was a two party election in England with tactical voting skewing results against the Tories, after all they got 42.4% of the vote, up from 36.9% in 2015. The Tories should have wiped the floor with the incompetent Labour team though Corbyn (alone) managed to engage with the younger voters helping to increasing Labour's share by around 10% on last time, and the Tories good ideas were poorly communicated, i.e. allowing the social care plans - that could be bang on redistribution of wealth central Labour policy - to be described as dementia tax and not countering Labour's plan to do away with tuition fees by talking about the £11 billion bill that would mean a big tax hike for as all including the core Labour working class supporters. The Tories focussed too much on Brexit.
In Scotland it was very much three/four party politics, the Tories being the big gainers with 13 seats and nearly 30% of the vote - Salmond has gone and Sturgeon hamstrung so indytref2 is dead in the water. The voters saw through NS's plan to ask the same question until she got the answer she wanted because it was not the answer they wanted.
It's interesting that the Tories have a both a high share of the vote and for the first time in a long time representation all over the country, more so than Labour. I wonder how many questions the SNP will get now at PMQs, and it wont be Angus Robertson asking them, of all the SNP politicians I quite liked him. Also a shame about Nick Clegg, he was a good double act with DC, in fact if we could go back to the Tory/LD coalition I would take that now, and I miss DC, shame that he stepped down as PM as he had a clear mandate, the same one that TM took on, and a shame that he stepped down from parliament and the Tory's could do with him now ...
|
|
Rumour mill has it that Philip Hammond is in for the chop at the Treasury. He will be blamed for the Tory spend/tax plans in the manifesto (pensions triple lock, winter fuel allowance, dementia tax, no guarantee on tax rises, etc.).
|
>> The Tories focussed too much on Brexit.
I think they focussed too little. They diluted the campaign with dementia tax etc. They should have been agile to tackle Labour's manifesto.
>> Tories have a both a high share of the vote and for the first time in a long time representation all over the country, more so than Labour.
Possibly because many electorates aligned them with "Brexit" party (in absence of UKIP in practical terms).
>> He will be blamed for the Tory spend/tax
Which is treating the manifests of a problem rather than treating the root cause (TM in this case).
|
>> Ian Paisley will be looking down (or up?) & smiling.
>>
>> His DUP will be able to exact more than a pound of flesh from last
>> night.
The need to have the DUP on side, means that Brexit is now more or less impossible. Sin Fein are completely stupid, they could if they wish have a real say.
ironic that the UKIP voters have screwed up Brexit.
|
Nuttall has resigned.
Here is a link to a statement by the General Secretary of UKIP, Jonathan Arnott MEP., who has also resigned.
It is iinteresting for the navel gazers amongst us.
www.jonathanarnott.co.uk/2017/06/resignation-as-ukip-general-secretary-and-constitutional-affairs-spokesman/
|
Hey, madf, remember a month ago when I said.....
" she is not getting any credibility because even they realise that she is not convinced by her own words, so they will never be"
And you replied......
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mrs May, you appear to live on a different planet to me. She has HUGE unprecedented voter approval as PM.. All polling agrees.
So what you say is your own personal opinion NOT backed up by any polling ..just 100% contrary to it..."
How'd that work out for you???
|
Ill thoughout Tory Manifesto.
Ailienated the over 65s BIG STYLE.
Highlighted the rocky road of dementia, NHS, Pensions but did not have clear policies & limits on
the liability of well off pensioners - (Poor get looked after for free, Millionaires can afford it - the rest saw them paying out with no limits)
Lacklustre TM Performance on TV (even when she decided to turn up)
Corbyn was writing Blank Cheques for anyone & any cause when asked .............
|
>>
>> "Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mrs May, you appear to live on a different
>> planet to me. She has HUGE unprecedented voter approval as PM.. All polling agrees.
>>
>> So what you say is your own personal opinion NOT backed up by any polling
>> ..just 100% contrary to it..."
At the time Madf wrote it it was almost possible that voters thought that - based on her approval ratings. The question for the Tory post mortem is how it was thrown away.
Presumably she'll have to address the 1922 committee in next few days.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall.
|
"almost possible" ? Isn't that technically synonymous with "not possible"?
I don't think she threw anything away, she didn't have it in the first place. Only the polls said she did, and haven't we learned about them?
|
Her task now is to get the Brexit process started and hang in there until a suitable time to appoint another leader, my guess is next spring / summer.
The alternative is going through the whole Tory leadership process again, to appoint another leader who "hasn't been elected by the public"
And don't tell me you think standing aside so that Jeremy can try to run his program with a minority government. Now that is a non starter.
|
>>Presumably she'll have to address the 1922 committee in next few days.
>>I'd love to be a fly on the wall.
Well she can legitimately argue that she increased both the percentage of the vote and votes cast.
However, as we all know, with our cretinous electoral system, that doesn't necessarily translate into seats.
|
DUP
Ian Paisley will be looking down (or up?) & smiling today!
The party he founded holding the balance of power in the UK.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40217141
As per above link, DUP is anti-EU (almost in same level of UKIP as per above link)
So may be the election result is a blessing in disguise for Brexit supporters?
Which brings to my next point. If UKIP has any chance of winning any seats, they need to focus on regional level (like DUP/PC) where they have real chance of winning seats. Due to FPTP system, they can never be a winner in mainstream regions. If UKIP played this game, they would have been same position today where DUP is.
|
|
DUP - another lot you can trust as far as you can spit, considering the majority in NI voted for remain or is that conveniently forgotten as long as it makes them power brokers!?
|
>> DUP - another lot you can trust as far as you can spit, considering the
>> majority in NI voted for remain or is that conveniently forgotten as long as it
>> makes them power brokers!?
>>
That and the fact that they really don't like Jeremy C because of his IRA support past
|
Oh the irony of a frownie!
DUP are a party, not from the last century but the one before that!
Fiercely homophobic, anti gay marriage, anti women, anti abortion and anti half the population in its own province!
They will make a good partner for May and will no doubt relish turning back the clock on hard fought rights.
Last edited by: zippy on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 17:33
|
>>DUP are a party, not from the last century but the one before that!
>>Fiercely homophobic, anti gay marriage, anti women, anti abortion and anti half the population in its own province!
I am sure such inconveniences can be over-looked in return for some votes.
|
>>
>>
>> I am sure such inconveniences can be over-looked in return for some votes.
>>
Anyone in bed with the DUP won't get mine.
|
>> Anyone in bed with the DUP won't get mine.
See, you are clearly homophobic and puritanical as well.
|
>> So may be the election result is a blessing in disguise for Brexit supporters?
The extreme sect of Unionism have the UK PM over a barrel with all that implies for Irish peace and all you can think of is getting your way on Brexit?
Words fail me.
|
"Words fail me."
Well, I've just taken a look at the Labour manifesto and I can quite understand why the financially naive fell for it.
|
>> Well, I've just taken a look at the Labour manifesto and I can quite understand
>> why the financially naive fell for it.
An alternative view.
There are some things in there that could have waited and some fairly barefaced bribery but directionally I believe it to be correct. The problem as you know is that to make any difference at all, a party has to be elected.
There is nothing irrational about modestly redressing the balance away from the few towards the many, and committing to maintain essential public services especially the NHS.
Who are the mugs? I find it astonishing that so many working people, many over their ears in debt funded by money they have earned for the ruling class who are kind enough to lend it back to them at interest, can't see that behind the mantra of "we must have a strong economy" the Conservative party is in thrall to its paymasters to a greater extent than Labour is to the unions (as measured by the amount of dosh they stump up at election time).
There is a significant minority of people who have accumulated unimaginable wealth and use it to maintain their positions, with the help of their party, the Conservatives. They see no reason why they should not own the world.
It's always been this way since before the proles got the vote. I think the working class of my father's generation understood this more intuitively.
It comes into sharp relief when tax cuts are in the same manifesto as starving health and education of funds in the world's 5th or 6th ranking economy. Wake up, people!
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 15:37
|
>> An alternative view.
>>
The problem, apart from believing that class is still a factor in the 21st century is that you need to have a stronger economy than we have had for a number of years to be able to afford even part of the offers that were in the Labour manifesto and their associated hidden costs.
For example if you abolish tuition fees and cancel student debt how do you then find the money to keep the levels of university education we have in this country going.
We would all like to see the NHS and schools getting more funding but the problem is that there is only so much tax you can raise without screwing the economy which isn't just about the very rich it's the whole range of working people, their pensions and their savings. You can't get it all from the few very rich ones.
|
>> The problem, apart from believing that class is still a factor in the 21st century
and you don't think it is? It is the wealthy elite who perpetuate it, not the oompa loompas.
>> is that you need to have a stronger economy than we have had for a
>> number of years to be able to afford even part of the offers that were
>> in the Labour manifesto and their associated hidden costs.
>> For example if you abolish tuition fees and cancel student debt how do you then
>> find the money to keep the levels of university education we have in this country
>> going.
I've already said that was ambitious, overdone if you like. But I'd like to hear somebody ask whether it was necessary for the Conservatives to continue reducing corporation tax to 17% too.
>> We would all like to see the NHS and schools getting more funding but the
>> problem is that there is only so much tax you can raise without screwing the
>> economy which isn't just about the very rich it's the whole range of working people,
>> their pensions and their savings. You can't get it all from the few very rich
>> ones.
I agree. We need to develop a healthier relationship with tax, but we need to see some benefits from it too. The attack on universal benefits was a step in the wrong direction.
|
>>The problem, apart from believing that class is still a factor in the 21st century
>>and you don't think it is? It is the wealthy elite who perpetuate it, not the oompa loompas.
No I don't think the 21st century rich are anything to do with the class system, that's gone.
>>I've already said that was ambitious, overdone if you like. But I'd like to hear somebody ask >> whether it was necessary for the Conservatives to continue reducing corporation tax to 17% >> too.
Corporation tax is about encouraging business, which is ultimately about both encouraging jobs and keeping share prices up for pension funds etc.
>> I agree. We need to develop a healthier relationship with tax, but we need to see some >> benefits from it too. The attack on universal benefits was a step in the wrong direction.
An election manifesto was a stupid time to do it, the principle is no different to treasonable taxation on the better off. The better off don't really need a heating payment
|
>> No I don't think the 21st century rich are anything to do with the class
>> system, that's gone.
I'm not talking about ancestry or the landed gentry, the class discriminator vast wealth, subsidised by the many.
That's paradoxical sounding statement of course - when they do pay tax, no doubt they think they are subsidising the rest of us. But it isn't really in their interests to think about how wealth is really created.
|
"The problem as you know is that to make any difference at all, a party has to be elected."
If you promise to remove student tuition fees, then you will gain the votes of a couple of million naive young people.
If you say that you will have to re-visit the 'triple-lock', then you will lose the votes of a couple of million naive old people.
Honesty clearly does not pay in politics; it is no wonder that politicians are evasive when faced with tricky questions.
|
>> Honesty clearly does not pay in politics;
Think its the first time that honesty has reared its ugly head in an election.
|
"Think its the first time......."
Nope, just a simple example of why things went awry this time.
BTW, I note that Ms Abbott got in again - the world really has gone bonkers.
|
>> BTW, I note that Ms Abbott got in again - the world really has gone
>> bonkers.
A well regarded and long serving constituency MP is returned with an increased majority - oodathortit!!
To be clear, I'm not a fan of her brand of Labour politics. I struggle to tell the real Diane from the parody on Dead Ringers. She has however won numerous awards during her parliamentary career some of them are listed in this piece:
cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/
Those of a sensitive disposition should be aware that (a) it contains sweariness and (b) the author is Mx Jack Monroe.
It also makes the point that she's suffered years of racist and misogynistic abuse of which your term 'Hackney Hippo', albeit bad enough, is at the milder end.
|
>> It comes into sharp relief when tax cuts are in the same manifesto as starving
>> health and education of funds in the world's 5th or 6th ranking economy. Wake up,
>> people!
Its all very well you rummaging around in your bag marked "all property is theft" for standard communist workers party quotes and sticking them together as if they were leninist prose, but at the end of the day its unworkable revolutionist windbag stuff.
Labour Party = Economy in a mess. It has ever been thus since the days of Red Robbo.
|
>> Its all very well you rummaging around in your bag marked "all property is theft"
>> for standard communist workers party quotes
I'll have you know I can think all this stuff up on my own;)
If I paint the lily a bit it's only to balance all the forelock-tugging by the grateful mugs who vote Tory.
|
"If I paint the lily a bit it's only to balance all the forelock-tugging by the grateful mugs who vote Tory."
Come off it, Manatee, now you're sounding like Arfur Scargill ;-)
|
>> If I paint the lily a bit it's only to balance all the forelock-tugging by
>> the grateful mugs who vote Tory.
>>
You seem so stuck in the past century. I have news for you, brother comrade: communism doesn't work.
In case you haven't noticed, the rich don't keep their cash hidden under mattresses. It is paying the comrade wage-slaves their wages.
p.s. If you look at right wing sites like Guido's, you'll find the mugs who vote Tory think it is naive clueless feckless sponging losers (and many more other adjectives) who vote Labour. Which is why they either remain wage-slaves their entire lives or depend on handouts.
|
Who brought up communism? Not I. Let the market do its work. It's called a mixed economy.
It's not so extreme an idea at all, only by comparison with the greed culture that many comfortable boomers have been stoat-danced into believing is civilised.
Stand back a bit and dare to believe things could be better and fairer.
I am not falling in on party lines, I'd have a damned good argument with Corbyn given the chance. But the Conservatives don't want to think beyond preserving the status quo - it doesn't matter to them whether we are in or out of the EU, only that they keep the lid on 'subversive' behaviour and keep their wealthy sponsors happy.
I don't doubt the motives of people going into politics on either 'side'. But what happens then is a form of groupthink that also afflicts the left. If people like us don't think, scrutinise, and use the democratic process (which is not just about voting) then the left will quite possibly take the economy off the rails as you fear or the Conservatives will keep half the population living hand to mouth.
May got carried away, and turned out to be completely unsuitable as a PM and leader. Her hedge fund pals won't be very happy that she went too far and could well lose control.
What I will say is that the media, and especially the press*, have not been playing their proper part in fairly scrutinising government and in explaining to us how things work. They idolise or demonise, usually the latter. Broadcast media would be much worse than it is if it were not more highly regulated in election campaigns.
*Nobody reads papers any more. But the outrageous and outraged Mail and others now have big online business which are about revenue from clicks, and saying Corbyn was in the IRA or McDonnell went to public school gets them. Sanctimonious as the Grauniad can be, it generally doesn't plumb anything like the depths of the right wing tabloids. Private Eye is the only publication I actually trust (and the Dalesman of course).
Anybody who is 'just about managing' among the Tory faithful is probably looking down the wrong end of the binoculars.
This is a discussion forum isn't it?
|
In politics there is no permanent friend or permanent enemy :-)
|
What TM should have said before the speech she made outside no.10:
"I have to acknowledge that the results of yesterday's vote were not as I had hoped, in England the return to two party politics has not enabled us to secure as many seats in Westminster as we had hoped for. Nevertheless we have achieved significant gains in Scotland, we have increased our share of the vote nationally and are the largest party in Westminster by a clear margin ... ... "
|
|
One thing to remember among all the Tory Angst is that Labour still lost by a wide margin. Corbyn will need to convince a lot of people that he is not an economic basket case to close the gap.
|
|
Indeed but we mustn't deprive the Labour voters of their little bit of glory. They haven't had very much recently and we're almost half-way to Christmas.
|
>> One thing to remember among all the Tory Angst is that Labour still lost by
>> a wide margin. Corbyn will need to convince a lot of people that he is
>> not an economic basket case to close the gap.
The backlash against Indyref2 let Tories capture more seats in Scotland then they've had for a generation. Without that Corbyn would be in Downing Street.
|
>> the backlash against Indyref2 let Tories capture more seats in Scotland then they've had for a generation. Without that Corbyn would be in Downing Street.
Almost any election success or failure can be attributed to one factor, sometimes more. Would Thatcher have won in '83 without the 'Falklands' effect? Would Blair have won in '97 without the 'ERM' issue?
>>Without that Corbyn would be in Downing Street.
What a scary thought.
|
>>
>>
>> The backlash against Indyref2 let Tories capture more seats in Scotland then they've had for
>> a generation. Without that Corbyn would be in Downing Street.
>>
If Labour took all the Scottish seats the Tories won they'd have 273 and the Conservatives would drop to 306.
Labour would be just as far from a government as they are now.
|
>> Labour would be just as far from a government as they are now.
Largest party but with 306 to a combined 320 of LAb/LibDem/SNP (plus Plaid, Green and perhaps Sinn Fein if they abandoned abstentionism) could May win a vote of confidence?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 22:35
|
>> Largest party but with 306 to a combined 320 of LAb/LibDem/SNP (plus Plaid, Green and
>> perhaps Sinn Fein if they abandoned abstentionism) could May win a vote of confidence?
>>
I think that's a fair amount of ifs buts and maybes.
|
>> >>
>>
>> Largest party but with 306 to a combined 320 of LAb/LibDem/SNP (plus Plaid, Green and
>> perhaps Sinn Fein if they abandoned abstentionism) could May win a vote of confidence?
>>
A Labour/SNP coalition would be even more toxic than Tory/DUP. The SNP have few friends south of Hadrian's Wall where they are regarded as a bunch of whinging Engish haters. Their "Anyone but the Tories" stance in 2015 was what led to a Conservative majority, people did not like being dictated to by a party who's main purpose is to break up the UK.
|
>> The backlash against Indyref2 let Tories capture more seats in Scotland then they've had for
>> a generation. Without that Corbyn would be in Downing Street.
>>
Dream on. Corbyn had virtually zero effect on Scotland.
Without Indyref2, you would have had:
SNP 56
Labour 1
Conservative 1
Liberal Democrat 1
|
>>Dream on. Corbyn had virtually zero effect on Scotland.
Brian I assume you are not from Scotland and know nothing about Scottish politics?
|
>> >>Dream on. Corbyn had virtually zero effect on Scotland.
>>
>> Brian I assume you are not from Scotland and know nothing about Scottishpolitics?
FTFY!!!
|
>> One thing to remember among all the Tory Angst is that Labour still lost by
>> a wide margin. Corbyn will need to convince a lot of people that he is
>> not an economic basket case to close the gap.
You are right IMO. Wouldn't it be nice if the Conservatives elected a different leader with a social conscience and a bit more grey matter, ideally one who had not progressed smoothly through prep school, Eton, Oxford and MBB? If they don't, I can see a new dawn for Labour with a bit of tweaking to the presentation.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 9 Jun 17 at 19:01
|
|
An opportunity for Rees-Mogg maybe?
|
>> An opportunity for Rees-Mogg maybe?
>>
An opportunity for what? His Victorian gentleman routine?
|
We shall be sending a Conservative & Unionist Negotiating Team to meet the EU representatives.
A suitable acronym is being sought.
|
Seeing that the Conservatives got 42.4% of the vote, they are the biggest losers. 57.6% of the population voted for other parties and are now not represented in Parliament.
The first past the post system is broken, it keeps a 2 party status quo and prevents new parties from emerging.
Proportional representation, with all of its problems, would at least give voters real representation.
My back of a fag packet calculations suggest the following split (as of Friday morning):
Party % Proportional Actual
Conservative 42.4 276 318
Labour 40 260 261
LD 7.4 48 12
SNP 3 20 35
UKIP 1.8 12 0
Green 1.6 10 1
DUP 0.9 6 10
Sinn Fein 0.7 5 13
Plaid Cymru 0.5 3 4
SDLP 0.3 2 0
Ulster Unionist 0.3 2 0
Alliance Party 0.2 1 0
Yorkshire Party 0.1 1 0
NHS Action 0.1 1 0
Others 0.6 4 0
The LD, UKIP and the Greens are the biggest losers whilst the Conservatives, SNP, DUP, SF and PC have seats that they don't qualify for on a proportional basis.
I think hearing from others with a different view in the house may give a different perspective and could even moderate the main parties to some extent. The downside is that we could possible see some parties that would potentially disgust "normal" thinking individuals.
|
>> My back of a fag packet calculations suggest the following split (as of Friday morning):
>>
You cna put away your fag packet.
Big flaw in your calculations - the results in GE2017 were heavily skewed due to tactical voting. For proportional voting to work in the way you want, you'd have to have compulsory voting with penalties for spoiling ballots, abstaining, or voting tactically. The Stasi would have to monitor all your internet activities to gauge your real politics, and install mind readers to make sure you voted according to your real beliefs.
>> we could possible see some parties that would potentially disgust "normal" thinking individuals.
Do you mean, like, religious parties, you know, that believe humans were brought to earth, I mean, honestly, just a few thousand years ago? LOL.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 12:02
|
>> Big flaw in your calculations - the results in GE2017 were heavily skewed due to
>> tactical voting. For proportional voting to work in the way you want, you'd have to
>> have compulsory voting with penalties for spoiling ballots, abstaining, or voting tactically.
Brian, even by your low standards that's complete nonsense.
A quick search on Wikipedia will give you a list of countries that use proportional representation. Some may be less then paragons of true democracy but Ireland (Republic and North), Germany, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand are just a few open wholly free countries that are.
In Great Britain Scottish and Welsh devolved elections use PR.
Oz has compulsory voting, and there are good reasons for it provided there is an 'abstain' option. None of the other paraphenalia you mention are needed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 12:48
|
>> Big flaw in your calculations - the results in GE2017 were heavily skewed due to
>> tactical voting. For proportional voting to work in the way you want, you'd have to
>> have compulsory voting with penalties for spoiling ballots, abstaining, or voting tactically. The Stasi would
>> have to monitor all your internet activities to gauge your real politics, and install mind
>> readers to make sure you voted according to your real beliefs.
>>
There will always be tactical voting and it shouldn't rule out a democratic change to the voting system.
You can't compel people to vote. I wish you could, because from my experience, it's the non-voters that tend to moan the most!
Honestly, the FPTP system elects minorities to power.
It can also give undue influence to smaller regional parties, SNP, DUP, SF, PC etc. The same was seen in the US presidential race where smaller states had proportionally more influence than larger states.
At present, 1 person, 1 vote applies, but those votes are not equal.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/40232154
Former adviser paints an unflattering picture of the PM's team.
|
|
We need another election to settle all the uncertainty.
|
We need proportional system.
Unfortunately 2 largest parties aka Conservative or Labour do not want that.
Let's see if Con + DUP deal works out
|
>> Let's see if Con + DUP deal works out
Untenable.
Never mind the indirect links to terrorism, illiberal views on just about everything including the death penalty, inclinations in their ranks to promoting creationism and climate change scepticism; the government has to referee between the DUP & Sinn Fein to get power sharing back on the road, and I can't see SF being happy with the DUP having the Tory party by the knackers.
I'm no expert on NI so I might have missed something.
|
>> We need proportional system.
>> Unfortunately 2 largest parties aka Conservative or Labour do not want that.
A referendum was in Labour's manifesto in 2010
>> Let's see if Con + DUP deal works out
As I pointed out yesterday it's extremely dangerous for the Northern Irish political situation.
If you had 'steady state' power sharing it might be possible to avoid the pitfalls. Now there's effectively direct rule and a need for the Sec of State for Northern Ireland to act as facilitator and power broker.
He cannot do that if his Government depends on one of the two main protagonists.
The same would apply to any arrangement involving Sinn Fein. I suspect the albeit remote possibility of a 'rainbow coalition' was one reason the DUP jumped into bed....
EDIT: Manatee makes similar point.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 14:09
|
>> We need proportional system.
>> Unfortunately 2 largest parties aka Conservative or Labour do not want that.
Resoundingly rejected in a referendum a few years ago.
|
>> We need proportional system.
>> Unfortunately 2 largest parties aka Conservative or Labour do not want that.
>> Resoundingly rejected in a referendum a few years ago.
That was for Alternative Voting and not for Proportional Representation.
|
>> That was for Alternative Voting and not for Proportional Representation.
AV was nearest thing to PR that LibDems could get into the coalition agreement. Agreement was also that both parties would remain impartial in the referendum campaign. The Conservatives both directly and through their mouthpieces in the press flagrantly breached that agreement.
|
>> AV was nearest thing to PR that LibDems could get into the coalition agreement. Agreement
>> was also that both parties would remain impartial in the referendum campaign. The Conservatives both
>> directly and through their mouthpieces in the press flagrantly breached that agreement.
>>
According to the Guardian, itself hardly a bastion of Conservative support, there were a lot of other factors and your reason doesn't really figure amongst them.....
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost
|
your reason doesn't really figure amongst them.....
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum-lost
>>
Missed edit; having re-read the article with my glasses on, it does; but it's a long way from being the primary reason cited for failure.
|
>> Former adviser paints an unflattering picture of the PM's team.
Both fallen on their swords.
Won't change May's manner/methods. I'd still like to be a fly on wall when the 1922 committee meets on Monday.
|
Labour lost and the Tories won by less than expected.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 13:41
|
>> Labour lost and the Tories won by less than expected.
If it was an election after five years or for some other constitutional necessity that would be a reasonable comment.
Calling one one as a cynical political gamble and losing your (modest) majority is a defeat.
|
>> Labour lost and the Tories won by less than expected.
Where's the smiley?
Call it a win, deferred success, a failure of human interaction leading to an unplanned outcome or whatever you like. She ended up with 318 seats having started with 331 IIRC.
One might say TM is partially proficient. I say she is unfit for office or for negotiating on behalf of the UK.
Corbyn started by being labelled unelectable, and faced certain humiliation. Despite that, an overwhelming bias from the press and a relentless smear campaign he conducted himself with dignity throughout, showed himself to be far better at handling hostile interviews than TM, and cut the Tories' lead from 20 points in the polls to 2 points in the election. It could have been no more remarkable if he had walked on water.
The Tories appear to have a choice of death by a thousand cuts and/or self-immolation in another election.
If I didn't have to live here I'd say it was hilarious. If I was an EU negotiator I'd think I'd won the first three rounds without even turning up.
Her speech in Downing St shows that she still doesn't get it.
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/09/theresa-mays-speech-annotated-what-she-said-and-what-she-meant
I want to feel sorry for her but she doesn't deserve it - had she succeeded in her opportunistic grab for bigger majority and an extra two years in power, she would have set about asset-stripping the NHS, further undermining the education system and enriching her sponsors with renewed enthusiasm. She sounds as if she thinks she still can. Instead, I expect the wheels will come off quite quickly and her own party will do her in as soon as is convenient. There is no way she will be allowed to fight another election.
Last year I thought she was at least a safe-ish pair of hands. Didn't somebody mention the Peter Principle upthread somewhere? Probably in relation to Corbyn or Abbott. I think it applies to our PM too.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 15:07
|
Another comment from a Tory insider:
George Freeman, a Tory MP and head of the Downing Street policy board, has identified a central problem of the Conservative campaign was failure to realise the electorate’s fatigue with austerity.
He said it was “one of the key misunderstandings of the campaign: many Brexit voters were registering a rejection of domestic austerity policyâ€.
Freeman, who was sidelined from the writing of the manifesto, added that it was “lethal†to have ignored grassroots disillusionment with austerity.
From Guardian reporter Rowena Mason in that paper's rolling coverage.
|
>> one of the key misunderstandings of the campaign: many Brexit voters were registering a rejection of domestic austerity policy
Fully agree. Also if Labour would have shown full commitment to Brexit they might have bagged more seats. Comparing side by side, Labour's policy looked better for common public.
|
>> >> Former adviser paints an unflattering picture of the PM's team.
>>
>> Both fallen on their swords.
Left with the glass of whisky and the revolver more like. May was told to get rid or be stabbed in the front.
|
>> Left with the glass of whisky and the revolver more like. May was told to
>> get rid or be stabbed in the front.
I joked with somebody yesterday that the bottle of whisky and revolver bought by Labour for Corbyn at start of campaign could be sold on to Tories for a profit......
|
>> My back of a fag packet calculations suggest the following split (as of Friday morning):
>>
>> Party % Proportional Actual
>> Conservative 42.4 276 318
>> Labour 40 260 261
>> LD 7.4 48 12
>> SNP 3 20 35
>> UKIP 1.8 12 0
>> Green 1.6 10 1
>> DUP 0.9 6 10
>> Sinn Fein 0.7 5 13
>> Plaid Cymru 0.5 3 4
>> SDLP 0.3 2 0
>> Ulster Unionist 0.3 2 0
>> Alliance Party 0.2 1 0
>> Yorkshire Party 0.1 1 0
>> NHS Action 0.1 1 0
>> Others 0.6 4 0
First Past The Post is one of the least worst electoral systems. Unfair in some instances? Yes, of course.
Proportional Representation? How would that work? Each party is told how many seats they have won and the party chooses the MPs from their stock of candidates? Not at all sure about that! You would have to allow BNP, Communists etc, etc. Comfy with that?
If you want a fair system, then you can't have an un-elected upper chamber, no bishops, no hereditary peers. Of course the monarchy would have to go as well.
Be very careful what you wish for.
People saying that The Republic of Ireland has a fair system - I don't think so. What about the pressure and influence that the church imposes?
|
It actually comes down to a small number of votes, a couple of thousand votes or so either way may have given Labour a shot at an alliance or the Tories a similar majority to last time.
This link suggests that Labour were 2227 votes away from the possibility of forming an alliance.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html
However 1706 votes placed for the Tories rather than Labour (LD in Oxford West & Abingdon) could have given them a majority. 11 votes in Kensington, 25 votes in Crewe & Nantwich, 94 votes in Canterbury, 125 votes in Keighley, 304 votes in Peterborough, 344 in Stroud, 395 in Bedford and 408 votes in Oxford West & Abingdon.
|
>> This link suggests that Labour were 2227 votes away from the possibility of forming an
>> alliance.
>> However 1706 votes placed for the Tories rather than Labour
As above, you're whistling in the dark. MAy called an election on the sole proposition that she needed a bigger majority in order to be Strong and Stable.
She now has no majority without support of the DUP.
The Tories were losers and are now in the denial phase as in grief or those confronted with major change at work.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 14:15
|
>> >> This link suggests that Labour were 2227 votes away from the possibility of forming an alliance.
>>
>>>>However 1706 votes placed for the Tories rather than Labour
>>
No, that's factual.
Labour would get max 322 votes with ALL other parties bar DUP, tho inc Sin Fein, in an alliance, not enough for a majority.
More chance of success from a minority Tory gov that an alliance with that many member and still no majority.
>> She now has no majority without support of the DUP.
>>
I'd prefer an LD coalition than DUP I must say.
>> The Tories were losers
Tory 318, Labour 262, er who won?
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 15:38
|
Proportional Representation? How would that work? Each party is told how many seats they have
>> won and the party chooses the MPs from their stock of candidates? Not at all
>> sure about that! You would have to allow BNP, Communists etc, etc. Comfy with that?
It's a form of voting with many options.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
|
|
Why Conservative and Labour cannot form a coalition? Both sides can give and take few policies. Each party leader can rotate PM role for a year. Just a thought. :-)
|
>> Why Conservative and Labour cannot form a coalition? Both sides can give and take few
>> policies. Each party leader can rotate PM role for a year. Just a thought. :-)
>>
Even allowing for the fact that both parties are poles apart, if you want a government with no opposition that would be fine. No one does.
Agree with what was said earlier, a stronger line on Brexit would have won it for Labour. As it is we are probably less than twelve months away from upsetting Brenda from Bristol again.
|
>>
>> Agree with what was said earlier, a stronger line on Brexit would have won it
>> for Labour.
The irony of that is that most of the younger voters supporting Labour did so hoping to scupper Brexit, not support it.
What the Stop the Tories brigade have done is elect a weakened negotiating team. The likely consequence of that is that we shall either get a poor deal, or no deal. As I said, a gamble for both sides.
|
>>The irony of that is that most of the younger voters supporting Labour did so hoping to scupper Brexit, not support it.
>>What the Stop the Tories brigade have done is elect a weakened negotiating team. The likely consequence of that is that we shall either get a poor deal, or no deal. As I said, a gamble for both sides.
Yup! .. thems killed orf UKIP, and scuppered Brexit, quite clever really when y'all come to think about tit.
|
>> The irony of that is that most of the younger voters supporting Labour did so
>> hoping to scupper Brexit, not support it.
I'm not so sure on that anymore. Most people now accept that Brexit will happen, it's just a question what form it will take. Austerity, the NHS and then in the wake of the terror attacks police numbers became the issues that cost the Tories the most votes.
Technically the Conservatives won the election, but as it was called to increase their majority and that was in fact reduced to the point where they can't govern on their own they were the losers on Thursday. Corbyn would also probably have won more seats if the consensus was that he had a decent chance of winning, I suspect that many soft Labourites did not turn out because they felt it would be a waste of time.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 17:24
|
>> Each party is told how many seats they have
>> won and the party chooses the MPs from their stock of candidates? Not at all
>> sure about that! You would have to allow BNP, Communists etc, etc. Comfy with that?
What you describe sounds like a list system. Downside is it gives too much power to party apparatchiks who determine selection for and ranking on the list. Most such systems have a floor of 3-5% of vote to get elected. If a handful of extremists get in then that's democracy.
Scotland and Wales have a hybrid constiuency/list ststem
>> If you want a fair system, then you can't have an un-elected upper chamber, no
>> bishops, no hereditary peers.
You can. It would be no less contrary then present arrangement.
>> Of course the monarchy would have to go as well.
Err no. No contradiction between PR and constructional monarchy.
>> People saying that The Republic of Ireland has a fair system - I don't think
>> so. What about the pressure and influence that the church imposes?
Different question. The right wing press has pressure and influence here. PR cannot stop that either.
|
So, if I understand the comments correctly;
the Conservatives in general ran a rubbish campaign amd were lead by Teresa May who is also rubbish. But they won.
Corbyn ran a brilliant campaign with a much admired manifesto. But they lost.
Which tends to suggest that Labour did the very best they could whereas the Conservatives did much worse than they could or should have.
Kind of difficult to understand any winning angle or perspective on that for Labour.
|
>> Kind of difficult to understand any winning angle or perspective on that for Labour.
>>
Spot on!
Though Bromp and Manatee are lefties and won't have it ...
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 17:24
|
>> Though Bromp and Manatee are lefties and won't have it ...
Lefties? Depends where you start from. We have had years of conditioning since 1997, starting with Tony Blair who was IMO somewhat to the right of Edward Heath. Do you remember him? You could barely get a cigarette paper between him and Wilson.
If right and left mean anything.
I prefer to think in terms of fair, or unfair, libertarian or authoritarian.
There's nothing new under the sun. Seen in the context of post WW2 UK politics, Labour's manifesto is probably less extreme than that of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
|
The Conservatives went backwards due to their own poor campaign, poor manifesto, and poor presentation by PM who perhaps had been advised not to take any risks with unmanaged appearances or debates.
They might still have done much better, maybe even increased their majority, had Corbyn and Labour not performed far better than expected - a comprehensible manifesto with actual numbers in it, good performances by Corbyn in hostile interviews, credibility and humility in debate and on the stump.
I'm sure the Tories feel as if they have lost, whether they won or not. Similarly, Labour must feel they have broken through.
Plenty to pick at of course whichever side you're on, if any.
|
>> The Conservatives went backwards due to their own poor campaign, poor manifesto, and poor presentation by PM who perhaps had been advised not to take any risks with managed appearances or debates.
>>
>> They might still have done much better, maybe even increased their majority, had Corbyn and Labour not performed far better than expected - a comprehensible manifesto with actual numbers in it, good performances by Corbyn in hostile interviews, credibility and humility in debate and on the stump.
>>
>> I'm sure the Tories feel as if they have lost, whether they won or not. Similarly, Labour must feel they have broken through.
>>
>> Plenty to pick at of course whichever side you're on, if any.
>>
Agree with most of that except that Labour have not broken through, although Corbyn appealed to the young he was ultimately a liability and they may have been elected with someone credible like Hilary Benn, the trouble is that there are few Labour politicians currently with the credentials to govern, Andy Burnham is mayor of Manchester, David Milli in out of the picture, Tristam Hunt has left politics etc ...
|
>> to the young he was ultimately a liability and they may have been elected with
>> someone credible like Hilary Benn,
The labour party with Hilary Benn would have trounced the tories this time out.
I'd have been happy with that. The union patsy STILL lost Labour the election.
|
A point raised on R4.
The student voters came out in droves with a promise that they would get free tuition.
This seems to have swung the vote in " university towns " .
At the end of their studies most students will then disperse leaving the long term residents with the outcome.
|
>> This seems to have swung the vote in " university towns " .
>> At the end of their studies most students will then disperse leaving the long term
>> residents with the outcome.
No. Because the leaving students will be replaced by a fresh lot of 'wet behind the ears' arrival students.
|
>> At the end of their studies most students will then disperse leaving the long term
>> residents with the outcome.
Tradition is that they are replaced by some more students:)
|
A FD I was working with yesterday commented on the student labour vote...
They are left saddled with a debt now, that most will never repay. Vote Labour, get rid of that debt now and saddle them with a debt later that they will never repay. Same old snake oil, different vendor.
|
>> The student voters came out in droves with a promise that they would get free tuition.
>>
That's a point, Labour's uncosted promise may have cost the Tories, the students who voted in droves not realising that it would cost the country 11 billion a year so ALL students who come out of uni would pay more tax inc those today who do not have to pay anything back because they earn less than £23k. In other words, contrary to Labour's stated principals, it hits the poor hardest.
|
>> The student voters came out in droves with a promise that they would get free tuition.
>>
Perhaps I should have included " this time"
Maybe they will not be so dedicated at the next election.
|
>> Kind of difficult to understand any winning angle or perspective on that for Labour.
As in so much else context is everything.
Context here is that May went to country solely to increase her majority. She herself admitted in campaign that losing six seats would be a defeat. She dropped a (net) 13*.
She has lost. The Conservative party, which had an adequate majority, is grievously wounded.
Just like 1974.
The Theresa rubbish/Corbyn brilliant comparison is about reasons for her plight. Theoretically a Lib Dem revival in Tory remain seats and/or Pat's dream of UKIP gains in Brexit land would have left an identical smoking hole in her foot.
As it happened it was Labour, aided by FPTP and return to two party politics in England that inflicted the wound. That's Corbyn's victory.
*Would have been more if hadn't totally unexpected election hadn't caused Indyref 2 to blow up in Nicola's face.
|
>> As it happened it was Labour, aided by FPTP and return to two party politics
>> in England that inflicted the wound. That's Corbyn's victory.
>> *Would have been more if hadn't totally unexpected election hadn't caused Indyref 2 to blow
>> up in Nicola's face.
Yes so HOW do you explain the Tory success in Scotland? Hmmm? Why didn't your mister wonderful do soooo much better in his heartland? hmmm?
At the end of the day, Corbyn cost Labour an election win. No ifs, no Buts.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 15:51
|
>> Yes so HOW do you explain the Tory success in Scotland? Hmmm? Why didn't your
>> mister wonderful do soooo much better in his heartland? hmmm?
With exception of Stirling and Aberdeen South none of the gains were seats where Labour was ever in contention in recent times.
Stirling was once Michael Forsyth's seat and lost in 90s and held by Labour during Blair's pomp. Aberdeen South has similar history, once held by Tory 'rent a quote' man Iain Sproat, it fell while Tories were unelectable in Scotland.
All the others have a history of Tory/Liberal/SNP representation.
|
>> All the others have a history of Tory/Liberal/SNP representation.
So the tories won theirs back, and Corbyn didn't.
|
>> So the tories won theirs back, and Corbyn didn't.
As Bobby alludes upthread, replying to Brain by Pass, Scotland has it's own politics. Labour held one and gained six.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 17:48
|
>> At the end of the day, Corbyn cost Labour an election win. No ifs, no
>> Buts.
As I've said here before I'm not a fan of Corbyn. OK with his policies but thought him a useless leader - not got the people/management skills. If I'd been a member in 2015 I'd have held my nose and voted for Yvette Cooper.
Nothing prior to this campaign suggested he was anything other than a liability.
But IF May had thought Labour a credible opposition she'd not have called the election in the first place.
Which of course gives the lie to Corbyn cost Labour an election win. No ifs, No Buts.
|
>> Which of course gives the lie to Corbyn cost Labour an election win. No ifs,
>> No Buts.
>>
No it doesn't, not even close. If Benn had been leader, labour would have whooped Mays ass. with her crap election campaign. But then May would not have called an election had Benn been leader.
What this does of course is consign labour to the real scrap heap, because Corbyn now thinks he is electable with any wild left wing crap. He is the type of labourite that thinks he didn't win because he wasn't radically left wing enough
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 19:19
|
>> The Theresa rubbish/Corbyn brilliant comparison >>
I'll repeat what I said above, Corbyn was a liability and they may have been elected with someone credible at the helm.
Hilary Benn, Andy Burnham (mayor of Manchester), David Milli (out of the picture), Tristam Hunt (left politics).
There are very few Labour politicians with the necessary credentials.
Thank god they are not negotiating brexit.
|
>> Thank god they are not negotiating brexit.
I am hoping that TM gets nowhere near any negotiations.
They will probably make at least some allowances for her ridiculous posturing, but her aggressive tone throughout will not have achieved anything other than to increase the probability of a hostile attitude in return.
Every time she launches into another self aggrandising load of bombast about how she's going to use her strong and stable hand to negotiate the best deal it just confirms how clueless she is.
She is a liability, embarrassingly inept, and the sooner her 'colleagues' chuck her under the bus the better for all of us.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 10 Jun 17 at 16:08
|
There have been voting irregularities in two Labour seats.
In Plymouth, bags of votes were not counted:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40232776
In Newcastle Under Lyme, students were denied the right to vote:
www.itv.com/news/central/2017-06-09/labour-mp-calls-election-day-in-staffordshire-a-shambles/
This is not good enough. Elections have been conducted for long enough for these problems to have been iron out and we really don't want to go down the same road as the USA by questioning the legitimacy of the ballot.
|
>> There have been voting irregularities in two Labour seats.
>>In Plymouth, bags of votes were not counted:
They have been now, no material effect on the result; Labour GAin from Tory. While Miss B lived in Devonport Oliver Colville was her MP. She describes him as a man with a face you want to punch repeatedly.
>> In Newcastle Under Lyme, students were denied the right to vote:
Mix of factors.
Some polling stations has out of date registers. That happened in at least one London Borough in the Mayoral election. P*** poor organisation and lessons need to be learned.
In other cases students hadn't properly/fully completed the registration process. Not the Returning Officer's fault.
|
Undoubtedly there was some cynicism in May going for a snap election, but people were complaining loudly a few months back that May had no mandate, especially in the BREXIT context, as she hadn't been voted in, so maybe that also came into play. Short memories... :-)
|
I am unsure whether TM should step aside or not, the strategy backfired though she still increased the Tories share of the vote.
Though it is farcical that Labour claim a victory when it was 318-262 (or 43%-40% if you like) and ridiculous that they laud Corbyn when they might have really won without him ...
|
>> Kind of difficult to understand any winning angle or perspective on
>> that for Labour.
>As in so much else context is everything
Agreed.
And in this case presumably the important context is that it was essentially a competition that The Conservatives​ won, though not by as much as they wanted, and Labour lost, although not by as much as they feared.
|
I've been away for a week or so and can't be fussed to read through this thread, but I've only one comment to make.
I never thought I would live to see the day when Mansfield elected a Conservative MP.
|
What is the fear in the U.K regarding common sense socialist policies?
Health, education and be able to work for a decent wage.Under Tony Blair the Labour party became the second Tory party.Corbyn has pulled his party to the left where it originated from.
The majority of Northern European countries are run on a Socialist Democratic system.Most of them have proportional representation which can cause problems but a fairer system.
Working class people voting for a class who care little for them.Just my thoughts.
|
>> What is the fear in the U.K regarding common sense socialist policies?
>>
>> Working class people voting for a class who care little for them.Just my thoughts.
>>
That doesn't reflect reality, it's a matter of ethos, simplistically:
Socialist - let's spend loads of money on health and welfare etc, oh we haven't got any, let's tax the rich and big business, oh that didn't work, we're getting no more tax and more people are out of work and we have a bigger welfare budget, let's borrow loads to pay for it ...
Conservative - let's stimulate the economy and create a low tax society where business can thrive and employ loads of people who then pay tax rather than rely on welfare, great we have lot's of money coming in that we can spend on health and welfare etc (though we have to pay off the last socialist gov's deficit as well) ...
|
simplistically:
You think ;-)
|
>> What is the fear in the U.K regarding common sense socialist policies?
>>
>> Health, education and be able to work for a decent wage.Under Tony Blair the Labour
>> party became the second Tory party.Corbyn has pulled his party to the left where it
>> originated from.
Correct - although I caught a whiff of the nasty, threatening kind of socialism around him and McDonnell, the ideological kind. The recent manifesto doesn't reflect that, and I don't think we have much cause to worry - if he had gone in that direction May would have won properly, despite herself.
What we were presented with in the campaign was much more akin to 60s and 70s Labour. e.g.
Paxman: "...nothing in this manifesto which is about getting rid of the monarchy which is another thing you believe in, isn’t it?â€
Corbyn: "Look, there's nothing in there because we're not going to do it."
>> Working class people voting for a class who care little for them.
Astonishing isn't it.
Truth is though that if either laissez-faire economics or Red-Robbo-type labour becomes ascendant then we have a catastrophe. The adversarial nature of politics means we oscillate between the two, although there wasn't really much oscillation with New Labour.
With PR we might get a steadier ship.
|
>>>> there wasn't really much oscillation with New Labour.
>>
Doesn't that tell you something? That New Labour under Blair was nearer making sense.
Over nearly 40 years Thatcher, Major, Blair (much more centre than any previous Labour gov, Brown (moved a bit left), Cameron, May - not too much oscillation - though if it had be Corbin it would have been back to the 70's pre Thatcher dark ages.
|
>>what is the fear in the U.K regarding common sense socialist policies?
Usually the non common-sense policies needed to pay for it.
|
> I never thought I would live to see the day when Mansfield elected a Conservative
>> MP.
>>
Not the only shock, the cons lost kensington and canterbury.
|
>> Not the only shock, the cons lost kensington and canterbury.
>>
Kensington's London so detached enough from the real world to be ideal Labour teritory, despite the money. Canterbury's a student city, so less surprising than you might think.
|
Kensington's London so detached enough from the real world to be ideal Labour teritory, despite
>> the money.
I've not looked, although it's a new consituency. I wouldn't image its not been labour heartland.
Canterbury's a student city, so less surprising than you might think.
It may well be but i don't think students are new there and it's been conservative for something like a hundred years. That's a surprise.
|
>> Canterbury's a student city, so less surprising than you might think.
>>
>> It may well be but i don't think students are new there and it's been
>> conservative for something like a hundred years. That's a surprise.
>>
Students voting for the first time. OOOH free tuition fees- Yes please
|
>> Canterbury's a student city, so less surprising than you might think.
>>
>> It may well be but i don't think students are new there and it's been
>> conservative for something like a hundred years. That's a surprise.
>>
Students aren't new but the fact that young people voted in such numbers is; and despite my conservative sympathies I think that's one of the few positives to come out of this election.
|
>>I think that's one of the few positives to come out of this election.
And Clegg losing his seat.
|
>> Yup: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansfield_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
There's a glitch in those figures because they show turnout as identical to 2015 when in fact it was a bit higher.
Pretty clear that what happened there was what May hoped would happen elsewhere. Sid the Kipper took a quarter of the vote in 2010 and 5% this time. The Tory gained more from that then LAbour.
|
>>And in this case presumably the important context is that it was essentially a competition that The Conservatives​ won, though not by as much as they wanted, and Labour lost, although not by as much as they feared.
I think that's about the most succinct and accurate account of the election that I've read anywhere.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Sun 11 Jun 17 at 09:46
|
>> the Conservatives in general ran a rubbish campaign amd were lead by Teresa May who
>> is also rubbish. But they won.
>>
>> Corbyn ran a brilliant campaign with a much admired manifesto. But they lost.
>>
>> Which tends to suggest that Labour did the very best they could whereas the Conservatives
>> did much worse than they could or should have.
>>
That kind of sums it up for me. TM openly backed hunting, the "Dementia Tax" and released every possible bogeyman she could but still ended up with 46 more seats than Labour. If the Conservatives at their very worst can achieve that it doesn't look good for Labour at the next election. If Corbyn's policies swing even more to the left, I fully expect a few more moderate Labour MP's to either cross the floor or resign.
|
>> the "Dementia Tax"
And there is where it was lost. The parallels with Maggie and "the poll tax" are inescapable. Both immensely sensible fair and practical, both badly introduced and sold to the public.
It did for M&M maggie and may
|
I don't know what minimum notice is legally required to call a general election, but if May wanted to capitalise on the "Brexit effect" then snap needed to mean snap. Instead of which she gave herself weeks and weeks to lose it through badly thought out policies and abysmal campaigning.
I really wonder whether she has caught something of the Diane Abbot effect, pathetically and mindlessly repeating "strong and stable" while retreating into a virtual bunker. It's as if the dementia tax row has addled her mind by word association.
Campaigning in Labour marginals was pointless and failed to understand the political landscape. The enormous opinion poll swing from Labour was a temporary and abnormal Brexit effect - these were never going to be real deserters to the Tory cause - and it needed careful and crafty campaigning to capitalise on the situation before it evaporated again. May's advisers seem to have totally missed that truth.
|
Yet despite all these undeniable truths as well as other abysmal home-goals the Tories scored (e.g. fox hunting), Labour still have a huge mountain to climb. I cannot think of another election where a Governing party has led such a disastrous campaign. This election was handed to Labour on a plate and still they couldn't win.
I suspect in Labour circles there are still some very serious questions being asked, despite their relative success. You can be damn certain the Tories won't cock-up like this again.
Mobilising the youth vote is a double-edged sword as Nick Clegg knows all too well...
I wonder what the Blairites will do now. I do not believe that New Labour is dead, I think a split is likely.
|
. This election was
>> handed to Labour on a plate and still they couldn't win.
I think that's a bit of after the fact there. I don't remember anyone during the campaign suggesting that at all quite the opposite in fact, JC was seen as liability and that labour would be wiped out.
>
> I wonder what the Blairites will do now. I do not believe that New Labour
>> is dead, I think a split is likely.
Unlikely I'd suggest, if they had they'd have done it during or just after all the rebellions against him.
|
|
There was certainly disquiet at local level but there seemed to be a view that best not to rock the boat and let Labour lose rather than worry about the Tories winning. Which of course with hindsight was not a wise move.
|
>>Both immensely sensible fair and practical
Aside from being unfair and hugely regressive the "the poll tax" was utterly impractical. As one civil servant said at the time 'try collecting that in Brixton'. Collection was both hugely expensive and, in areas with shifting populations, near impossible to collect. A quarter of a century on urban councils across the UK still have records of unpaid CC debt. It was a classic example of Thatcher's hubris, aided my Nick Ridley, that it got anywhere near the statute book.
Numerous bodies including those involved in Local Government finance pointed out the issues but the consultation that allowed them to do so was wholly cosmetic. MP's warned that it would alienate C1/C2 working class voters; the people who won and sustained Thatcher's majority.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 11 Jun 17 at 07:55
|
>>
>> Aside from being unfair and hugely regressive
>>
Any tax not based on ability to pay, and especially a flat-rate one such as domestic rates, is regressive.
No one has yet come up with a non-regressive basis for local taxation, other than a local income tax which for some reason has always been ruled out.
|
>> Any tax not based on ability to pay, and especially a flat-rate one such as
>> domestic rates, is regressive.
A property tax is less regressive than a flat rate charge. People with money by and large live in homes with a higher value than those without - and yes I do know about the old widow hanging on in the family home.
However it becomes more regressive when governments wimp out of the necessary quinquennial review of values. That happened with the rates, last revaluation 1974, abolished 1990 and Council Tax, currently running on 1993 values.
|
>>
>> A property tax is less regressive than a flat rate charge.
A property tax is flat rate. There are I think only 6 relatively narrow rates, spanning a very large spread of property values, set without any regard to the income or other means of the occupant(s).
It bears very little relation even to the notional rental income of the actual property. If it did, and was set at say 20% of that income, then it could be a fairer sort of property tax, but it doesn't.
There is council tax relief, but it is set at a high threshold, above national minimum wage.
|
Interesting to read the comments following this article from the olde Independent in July last year on whether Theresa could/should call a snap GE, such as:
Rather like saying ,"would it be possible to saw your own arm off?" Yes, technically it is, but she's got no interest in doing it ...
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-2017-snap-vote-can-theresa-may-call-one-early-rules-parliament-a7132846.html
|
G.E. 2017 - Hard Cheese
