Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Corbyn had previously said he would support it. If he decides he doesn't want an election, he'll be pilloried for bottling out for the rest of the term.
Originally posted by Cod:
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.
...although they might after the election.
quote:UKIP may play its part. The government has entered negotiations with the EU but having announced an election it can't continue those as there is now the possibility that a different kind of government is returned. If it does turn into a Leave/Return fight with the Tories and UKIP in the Leave camp then it is essential for the other parties to defeat them by identifying the likeliest party to defeat the Tory/Ukipper and supporting them, constituency by constituency. Not pretty, not a long term solution but just about the only way to stop the Tories, undo Brexit and reverse the damage done by seven years of lies and toadying to wealth and corporate interests.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O god....as though there isn't enough bad news all round the world already.
No doubt Mrs. Maybe-Maybe-Knott is hoping for an Erdogan-style victory, but, if the gods are kind (if gods there be), her wretched party will actually lose.
I live in hope, not much, but some...
IJ
quote:I think this possibly miscalculates the level of anti-Tory and anti-Brexit feeling in the country. Corbyn clearly has to now come out against Brexit to stand any chance of winning, but I think if the other parties work together they've got a good chance of taking out Tory marginals.
Originally posted by Cod:
Why? Labour are in disarray. They are likely to lose dozens of seats to the Tories. The Lib Dems, the biggest danger to the Tories in the south, have hardly started rebuilding. They could regain the SW London seats but little else and they could in fact help the Tories by attracting Labour voters alienated by Corbyn. The Tories will probably regain Clacton from UKIP, if Douglas Carswell doesn't return to the fold anyway. They will probably eliminate the UKIP vote: it's been sliding for months. The Tories could even pick up a few extra seats in Scotland.
quote:In some senses here, May is banking on the disarray. I'd say a minority of Tories really support the kind of hard Brexit being pushed by IDS and the other arsewipes, never mind Labour MPs and never mind the rest of the country.
Basically, unless something very surprising happens, the result will allow Theresa May to conduct Brexit negotiations with an absolute monster majority at her back. That being so, I would have thought it would be more in Labour's interest to tell her to get on with the job and stop buggering around. Labour will be toast.
quote:He's just said he "welcomes" the decision; so presumably it'll go through Parliament no problems tomorrow.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Corbyn had previously said he would support it. If he decides he doesn't want an election, he'll be pilloried for bottling out for the rest of the term.
Originally posted by Cod:
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.
...although they might after the election.
quote:I don't think so. I think there are a fairly significant number of Tory MPs in seats which voted Remain, so it'll be down to other parties to try to capture that vote and show that a vote for the Tories is a vote for the hardest of hard Brexits.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Whatever the Tory majority (and even if the other parties get their act together I reckon thy will get c 400 seats) Britain will still get a lousy deal.
quote:One MP in this area, Labour's Chris Matheson of Chester, has just said he will vote against an election. But he has the smallest majority in the house (I think) or less than 100...
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:He's just said he "welcomes" the decision; so presumably it'll go through Parliament no problems tomorrow.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Corbyn had previously said he would support it. If he decides he doesn't want an election, he'll be pilloried for bottling out for the rest of the term.
Originally posted by Cod:
Can someone explain how the Fixed Term Parliaments Act applies? I understand it requires a two thirds vote in favour of an election, and I'm pretty sure the Tories don't have that many seats.
...although they might after the election.
(Can't help wondering if the anti-Corbyn MPs will be hoping that this election will be the time when they're able to get rid of him...)
quote:I think we'll be seeing several Labour MPs falling on their swords by the end of the day, and if we're lucky also some Tories.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
One MP in this area, Labour's Chris Matheson of Chester, has just said he will vote against an election. But he has the smallest majority in the house (I think) or less than 100...
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Mm. I'd bet that'll be turned around again. I don't believe that byelections often indicate a fundamental change of political force in an area - the reality is that Tories policies are bad for poor people.
Originally posted by Cod:
Mr Cheesy - what about Copeland?
quote:It's pretty dumb for the current Labour party to rush into an Election.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think Labour have indicated they'll support.
I'd be pretty stupid for anyone to vote against a GE.
quote:Agreed, but obviously you can't really legitimately refuse to fight an election when your opponent has called it. Because that's tacitly admitting you're supporting her government, which would be (a) stupid and (b) impossible to sell to the party, never mind the electorate.
Originally posted by beatmenace:
It's pretty dumb for the current Labour party to rush into an Election.
But they have to say they are 'ready whenever' even if they are obviously not.
quote:There are various elections between now and June, I'm guessing non-parliamentary elections go ahead, presumably any pending by-elections go forward to the GE.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...
quote:That looks like what's going to happen - although there is apparently some possibility that the metro-mayoral elections will move to the GE date, along with the Gorton by-election. Council elections remain May.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:There are various elections between now and June, I'm guessing non-parliamentary elections go ahead, presumably any pending by-elections go forward to the GE.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Pfft - Jürgen Klopp electing a new pair of glasses would overshadow the Merseyside mayoral election ...
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...
quote:I agree - the profile here, on the edge, was already non-existent. The only pressing issue around here is free crossings on the new Mersey bridge arrangements. For those of inside the boundary it will be free anyway. For people over the border in Cheshire West, it will cost, but they can't vote for the mayor anyway.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Pfft - Jürgen Klopp electing a new pair of glasses would overshadow the Merseyside mayoral election ...
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Manchester and Merseyside are both supposed to be electing a regional mayor on May 4th. Those elections are going to be completely overshadowed now...
quote:Pretty sure that's why she's doing it. Which makes a mockery of the fixed term parliament act. I know there's the 66% HOC vote loop hole, but this is exactly the kind of maneuver that the act was supposed to stop isn't it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...
quote:The SNP got so many seats in 2015 that I don't think there is any way that they can hold onto all of them. Though, with Labour still in disarray, LibDem shenanigans in 2015 still fresh in memory, and the Tories as loathed as always they'll have to work hard to lose very many seats. In Scotland the question of IndyRef2 will loom large - which will work both ways with antagonism towards the Tories blocking Scotland having a chance to have a say supporting the SNP/Greens and the general "we don't want another referendum now" plus Unionism supporting everyone else. The SNP can afford to run this as a single issue election. Labour and Tory, and to a lesser extent LibDems, have to run it as a campaign to form a government and so should be running a broad platform across the range of UK Parliamentary policy subjects (defense, welfare, health, education etc).
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The SNP in Scotland will now have a lot of issues to consider, and may well lose seats.
quote:I agree: if the Act can be overcome this easily (basically by the PM saying, "I'd like to hold an election" and the opposition parties saying, "OK then"), is there much point in having it?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Pretty sure that's why she's doing it. Which makes a mockery of the fixed term parliament act. I know there's the 66% HOC vote loop hole, but this is exactly the kind of maneuver that the act was supposed to stop isn't it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...
quote:Particularly as May's reason for calling the election seems to be, "The other parties aren't playing fair - they keep disagreeing with me and stuff. That's not right. So I'm going to call an election to make them stop".
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.
quote:The Lib Dems will likely see a resurgence and have a relatively good election in the South. UKIP will tank because it's done its job. On a recent Question Time Paul Nuttall said he agreed with everything the PM says about Brexit, but he doesn't trust her to deliver it. This makes him irrelevant. Labour will lose seats but not perhaps as badly as some fear. Their support is so geographical that many of their seats are totally safe. It's very likely that the PM will significantly increase her majority.
Originally posted by Cod:
The Lib Dems, the biggest danger to the Tories in the south, have hardly started rebuilding. They could regain the SW London seats but little else and they could in fact help the Tories by attracting Labour voters alienated by Corbyn. The Tories will probably regain Clacton from UKIP, if Douglas Carswell doesn't return to the fold anyway. They will probably eliminate the UKIP vote: it's been sliding for months. The Tories could even pick up a few extra seats in Scotland
quote:Up to a point. If SNP run on the single issue of IndyRef2, that gives the opposition plenty of opportunity to show they're so focused on that they're not focusing on the other issues facing Scotland and go after them based on their record of delivering government. Which is patchy if I've understood my Scottish friends correctly. And they'll have to come up with a practical plan for how independence will actually work. Including answering the awkward questions about EU membership that they're currently dodging.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The SNP got so many seats in 2015 that I don't think there is any way that they can hold onto all of them. Though, with Labour still in disarray, LibDem shenanigans in 2015 still fresh in memory, and the Tories as loathed as always they'll have to work hard to lose very many seats. In Scotland the question of IndyRef2 will loom large - which will work both ways with antagonism towards the Tories blocking Scotland having a chance to have a say supporting the SNP/Greens and the general "we don't want another referendum now" plus Unionism supporting everyone else. The SNP can afford to run this as a single issue election. Labour and Tory, and to a lesser extent LibDems, have to run it as a campaign to form a government and so should be running a broad platform across the range of UK Parliamentary policy subjects (defense, welfare, health, education etc).
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The SNP in Scotland will now have a lot of issues to consider, and may well lose seats.
quote:So create your own Party and campaign for the policies you want to see implemented. Nobody is stopping you. And if enough people agree with your platform then you'll win the election and get to run the country accordingly.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.
quote:Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Pretty sure that's why she's doing it. Which makes a mockery of the fixed term parliament act. I know there's the 66% HOC vote loop hole, but this is exactly the kind of maneuver that the act was supposed to stop isn't it?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's pretty cynical IMO: Labour will be soundly trounced with Corbyn at the helm which will enable TM to cruise with a solid majority for the next five years...
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.
quote:Yes, she wants a bigger majority so that she can enact her policies more easily. Whether she gets it or not is up to the people. Which is as it should be.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Particularly as May's reason for calling the election seems to be, "The other parties aren't playing fair - they keep disagreeing with me and stuff. That's not right. So I'm going to call an election to make them stop".
quote:Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party.
quote:The Welsh voters weren't though. So it leaves us asking how much of Wales the party represents.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.
quote:What an odd thing to say. Obviously every political party represents the views of the people who vote for them and not those who don't.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Welsh voters weren't though. So it leaves us asking how much of Wales the party represents.
quote:As have the SNP I believe. But as an English resident I can't vote for either.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party.
quote:That's a relief. May v Corbyn v Farron - how rubbish would that be?
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
No TV debates in this election, according to No. 10....
quote:Might've been OK had they done it in the style of a Robot Wars mayhem match.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's a relief. May v Corbyn v Farron - how rubbish would that be?
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
No TV debates in this election, according to No. 10....
quote:I agree in general. But some Labour MPs ignored the party whip on Jeremy Corbyn's We're Definitely Going to Oppose the Tories Later vote.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.
quote:So campaign against her!
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Secondly, there is a possibility that shit-face will get in again, and continue her policy of trashing the country. The idea makes me want to vomit.
quote:We're literally on the other side of the world. I say leave 'em to it.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Even more so if the Terrible Toddlers start throwing their nuclear toys about in the meantime.....
quote:We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I agree in general. But some Labour MPs ignored the party whip on Jeremy Corbyn's We're Definitely Going to Oppose the Tories Later vote.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.
quote:I get the impression that Corbyn only thinks there are two legitimate political parties. Also he and a good section of his support won't forgive the Liberal Democrats for going into coalition with the Tories last time. Finally, I really don't think Corbyn's heart is in Remain.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I know it is not likely to happen or succeed, but how would a pact among the anti-Brexit (or anti-Tory) parties work?
quote:And what happened in the early hours of 24th June to change their minds...?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I agree in general. But some Labour MPs ignored the party whip on Jeremy Corbyn's We're Definitely Going to Oppose the Tories Later vote.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line. I accept that some of its key players probably still wish it was. But objectively it isn't. Some of the other bits of his ideology may be different, but Corbyn and his party line make it as much a Brexiteer party as Mrs Erdogan and hers.
quote:For the most part PC gets seats in the Welsh-speaking parts of Wales. They have won parliamentary seats elsewhere, but not Cardiff North, dormitory area home of Welsh Office/National Assembly and BBC Wales/Cymru staff, many of whom are Welsh speakers.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:The Welsh voters weren't though. So it leaves us asking how much of Wales the party represents.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. Plaid Cymru have always also been anti-Brexit.
quote:They had a Road to Damascus moment, in which they considered their political ambitions and reassessed their futures.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:And what happened in the early hours of 24th June to change their minds...?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.
quote:I have plenty of times in the past, and will, as much as I am able, this time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So campaign against her!
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Secondly, there is a possibility that shit-face will get in again, and continue her policy of trashing the country. The idea makes me want to vomit.
That's the hard part of the whole "democracy" thing. One Person One Vote is the easy bit, the rest is all about trying to convince each One Person to give their One Vote to the causes you support. If you succeed I shall congratulate you. If you fail I shall expect you to STFU about it for a bit.
quote:During the Article 50 debate in February/March, Sir Kier Starmer repeatedly made the point that Labour is a pro EU party. Now I am sure that I will never vote Labour while Jeremy Corbyn is leader and while Ken Livingstone is allowed to remain a member, but I feel sorry for the impossibility Labour has of defining a coherent strategy for Brexit to take into this election. Two thirds of Labour voters voted Remain. Two thirds of Labour constituencies voted Leave. You can't please them all.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I accept that a lot of people would like to think Labour is on the Remain side of the line {/B]
quote:Although I won't be joining Matt in supporting the Lib Dems, he's right here. Anyone who is so passionately opposed to Brexit that they would move heaven and earth to reverse the decision MUST vote Lib Dem. I made a flippant aside to Tim Farron getting more Lib votes than any leader since Lloyd George, but if the country(in England, that is. The Scots have the SNP and the Welsh have Plaid) wants to stop Brexit it's the only way to vote.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[B] Lib Dem for me; the only consistently anti-Brexit party
quote:In the UK Parliament is Sovereign. Consequently, it follows that any one Parliament 'cannot bind its successors".
Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution, how does one law get to prevent future laws from repealing it with a normal majority? Someone who understands British politics better than I can probably explain this.
quote:Oh I see. I thought a referendum result came through (which they'd promised to honour).
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They had a Road to Damascus moment, in which they considered their political ambitions and reassessed their futures.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:And what happened in the early hours of 24th June to change their minds...?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We should remember that most of the current government, including the PM and the chancellor were on the Remain side until June 24th. There isn't much principle around.
quote:Stonespring, it takes longer.
Originally posted by stonespring:
... 2. What prevents Parliament from just repealing the law requiring a 2/3 vote to have an early election rather than wait 5 years with a normal majority vote? Since the UK doesn't have a written constitution, how does one law get to prevent future laws from repealing it with a normal majority? Someone who understands British politics better than I can probably explain this.
quote:Corbyn isn't a Remainer, never was one and never wanted to be one. His heart is in Socialism in One Country - led by him. He regards membership of the EU as something that hinders his ability to impose that dream.
originally posted by Dafyd
... Finally, I really don't think Corbyn's heart is in Remain. ...
quote:A slight correction: its lack of policy and Corbyn's lack of ability to lead the party.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.
quote:Corbyn has two fantasies, both of which make him unsuitable to be allowed anywhere near power. One is that he's Lenin. The other is, that if as leader, he says something, that's all he needs to do. It will happen.
Originally posted by Cod:
Actually I have the impression he doesn't want to run anything. I agree with the rest of what you say though.
quote:It's up to the electorate to make it about something more than Brexit. Just say no.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
On last night's news coverage I saw more than one Labour MP trying to divert the conversation in the direction of the crisis in the NHS, school funding etc. This is something they're perfectly entitled to do as Brexit isn't the only game in town, or shouldn't be in a General Election. But all the news teams and most of the politicians agree that this is a Brexit election. Labour is still the most trusted party with regards to the NHS even when it's deeply unpopular. But what the public want to know from Labour is what vision it has for Brexit and how it plans to achieve it. Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.
quote:Democracy is dying because there is an elephant in the room - first past the post is not up to the current job. It's fine in a two-party system that encourages binary argument. We no longer have that (if we ever did). Consequently we get a series of governments who have less than half the support of the electorate, and a majority of people who feel their votes do not count. What we need urgently is a fairer representative voting system.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Meanwhile, there's not one major English party that I have any enthusiasm to vote for. Democracy is dying.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Though, the more we vote on issues other than Brexit then the less the result will be a mandate for a particular form of Brexit. Which makes the whole exercise fruitless in terms of uniting the country behind the narrow, racist, xenophobic idiocy that Mrs May is pursuing (not that I want the country united behind that anyway).
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's up to the electorate to make it about something more than Brexit. Just say no.
quote:Genuinely?? Have they been to the UK? Absent the odd nutter there's probably more chance of apathy leading to an all-time low turnout and general national shrug of the shoulders. That's not going to happen either though.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I was talking about this with colleagues today...
One said he was in fear of violence during the campaign, with tensions and emotions running high on both sides of the Brexit, and political, divide -- and adding in a good dose of dissatisfaction and resentment too. Do those in the UK see this too? Or do you think it will be relatively peaceful?
quote:I don't expect to see MPs or candidates getting gunned down in the street. And, UKIP won't be at the front of campaigning threatening violence if they don't get their way. So, yes relatively peaceful. Another Tory victory, especially if it results in a large majority, will be seen as an endorsement of the anti-immigration policies built upon the lies of the far right, and will probably result in a further hike in violence and intimidation of those not deemed to be British enough.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Or do you think it will be relatively peaceful?
quote:Really? I genuinely can't see UKIP winning anywhere. I mean, obviously I'd advise that if it was a real threat but genuinely?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out
quote:Since UKIP's win on 23rd June 2016, has there been any difference between them and the Tory party?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Really? I genuinely can't see UKIP winning anywhere. I mean, obviously I'd advise that if it was a real threat but genuinely?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out
quote:Well the Tories don't appear to have adopted the lovely UKIP policy of "proper liveries for trains"....
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Since UKIP's win on 23rd June 2016, has there been any difference between them and the Tory party?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Really? I genuinely can't see UKIP winning anywhere. I mean, obviously I'd advise that if it was a real threat but genuinely?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm going to have to vote Labour to keep UKip out
quote:OK, that aside .....
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well the Tories don't appear to have adopted the lovely UKIP policy of "proper liveries for trains"....
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:If Labour won't stand against a decision made in the heat of the moment on the basis of a campaign based on falsehoods, prejudice and outright lies they won't get my vote. I have grandchildren and I don't want them to grow up disadvantaged by Brexit.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It appears that the chances of Labour standing against Brexit are almost nil. Sadly.
quote:Are all the parties so craven at the result of that bloody referendum? Has no one any guts?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even the LibDems on the TV news this morning were talking about keeping the UK in the single market and not keeping us in the EU.
quote:I don't either, but it happened last year.
I don't expect to see MPs or candidates getting gunned down in the street.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:When it comes down to it, and even with the gains they expect to make in certain seats, the LibDems do need to bear in mind that 25% of 2015 LibDem voters voted Leave.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Are all the parties so craven at the result of that bloody referendum? Has no one any guts?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even the LibDems on the TV news this morning were talking about keeping the UK in the single market and not keeping us in the EU.
quote:During the Commons debate Farron refused to rule out coalitions with anyone.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Someone at LibDem HQ needs to be running the numbers if they aren't already - Vince this morning on BBC R4 ruled out working with Labour post election.
quote:He's probably right on that. IMHO Corbyn is even less likely to be prepared to co-operate with anyone else than Gordon Brown was. He would regard it as a betrayal of both his vision and his claque team. The whole idea of such a thing is deeply and profoundly foreign to his nature.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
... Someone at LibDem HQ needs to be running the numbers if they aren't already - Vince this morning on BBC R4 ruled out working with Labour post election.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:This might as well be my sig. Out of fear, people are turning the world into one that should scare them even more.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Dear God, how depressing it all is.
IJ
quote:Most British politicians fall on their swords when they lose a major vote. I hope to see Labour get such a mauling that, one way or the other, they get rid of Corbyn and begin the healing process to make them electable again. As happened in the 1980's and 90's. The honourable thing for him to do would be to resign, but if he's too thick skinned he needs to be pushed. As long as he isn't replaced by the odious Mr McDonnell.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The one fundamental pre-condition for anyone to be able to enter into a coalition with Labour would be Labour having a different leader, and the dominant element among its members won't wear that.
quote:What Schroedinger's cat said
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem with the leaders is that there is no clear person to replace them. I don't think there is single person in the leadership of any of the major parties who I would trust with posting a letter, never mind leading the country.
quote:I think this is where my colleague was going...
Originally posted by Jane R:
Alan:quote:I don't either, but it happened last year.
I don't expect to see MPs or candidates getting gunned down in the street.
quote:Remember folks, Nicola Sturgeon was irresponsible to suggest an independence referendum in the run up to Brexit because the UK government needed to concentrate on the negotiations.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?
quote:Where do you get this nonsense from? Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people, and I've no idea what a "claque team" is. As for the idea that the junior party in a coalition could force out the elected leader of the senior party: I hope you're enjoying whatever it is you're smoking! Damn right the members wouldn't wear it, and why on earth should they? The only way Labour are going to be considering a coalition is if they're the largest party. Could Clegg have made Cameron resigning a condition of coalition in 2010? Don't be absurd.
Originally posted by Enoch:
He's probably right on that. IMHO Corbyn is even less likely to be prepared to co-operate with anyone else than Gordon Brown was. He would regard it as a betrayal of both his vision and his claque team. The whole idea of such a thing is deeply and profoundly foreign to his nature.
The one fundamental pre-condition for anyone to be able to enter into a coalition with Labour would be Labour having a different leader, and the dominant element among its members won't wear that.
quote:Not really. It has already been made clear that negotiations won't get off the ground until June. In that sense the PM's timing is perfect.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?
quote:Thanks.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ian, the problem there is that there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.
quote:Back in 1982 Jeremy Corbyn and his close friend and ally Ken Livingstone were at the forefront of opposition to the expulsion of the Trotskyite Militant Tendency from the Labour Party. Well now they're back in in their latest incarnation as Momentum. These are the people behind Jeremy Corbyn now. It was only when Michael Foot and later Neil Kinnock enforced these expulsions that Labour began the long road back to electability. It's only when Labour learns the same lesson again and rids itself of this leadership and the malign influence of Momentum that it can rehabilitate itself. There are plenty of Labour MP's who can be at the forefront of this rehabilitation. I only hope it doesn't take 13 years this time. That's why I hope for a resounding Labour defeat so it has a chance of making itself fit to govern within the space of one parliament.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
If Corbyn were to be rolled, how would the everyday member who loves him react? [I think I could guess, but would they just move on?]
quote:But is the doctrinal purity of that Labour party members who support him the same as Corbyn's doctrinal purity? It seems to me that a lot of the enthusiastic young people who joined the Labour party to vote for Corbyn see him as the closest thing to the Green Party that they will get out of Labour. Corbyn's detractors, though, keep calling him a Leninist (which he may very well have been, and he may be running the party in an authoritarian way like a Leninist would, but my very little knowledge of his statements as party leader have not shown me yet anything to indicate that he is a Leninist rather than just very old school in his Labour Party politics. I know that I don't know much about him - so I'd like to hear from you exactly how he is a Leninist today!... and whether or not the Labour Party members that support him are Leninists).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ian, the problem there is that there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.
quote:Well I like the stuff he says (but I'm a Tory Party member...)
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Party member here.
Nah, he's not talking for me.
Is he talking for any party member here?
quote:The negotiations will start then. But, between now and then the EU negotiators will be formulating their response to the letter Mrs May wrote triggering Article 50 and the white paper, meeting other European leaders to gauge what room they'll have and still get something that will be approved etc. They could continue that process ready for a June start to negotiations. Or, they could pause so that if the election results in a change of government (and, presumably negotiating position on Brexit) they don't have to bin most of what they've done before starting their response to the new UK position.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Not really. It has already been made clear that negotiations won't get off the ground until June. In that sense the PM's timing is perfect.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If that happens, it will take almost another month off the alotted time, won't it?
quote:Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Back in 1982 Jeremy Corbyn and his close friend and ally Ken Livingstone were at the forefront of opposition to the expulsion of the Trotskyite Militant Tendency from the Labour Party. Well now they're back in in their latest incarnation as Momentum.
quote:He certainly has no problem co-operating with Teresa May.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people
quote:Anything would be preferable to the position May has laid out, and another five years of Tory mis-rule. I would like a reversal of Brexit, but the big stumbling block there is the lack of enough parties standing on a reversal of Brexit platform. The Greens have been calling for a ratification referendum at the end of the negotiations, with a "stay in the EU" option for those unhappy with what the government has cooked up, the SNP would try to take Scotland back into the EU though I doubt they would campaign on keeping the UK as a whole in the EU. But, I don't see the Greens getting more than a handful of seats (which would be great in itself), and the SNP could sweep the board in Scotland and only have influence as a king-maker for a coalition (and, another IndyRef at a time chosen by the Scottish Parliament would be the price for that, not support for remaining in the EU).
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?
quote:You mean something along these lines? (I don't even know who is compiling this one - someone linked it on facebook.)
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is there any chance that even if the anti-Tory parties themselves can't get their act together to form an electoral pact, that there could be a grass roots movement to unite voters behind a single anti-Tory candidate (the one most likely to win) in each constituency
quote:But couldn't Labour, the SNP, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all agree that if Brexit does happen (suppose the EU won't let the UK go back on Invoking Article 50), and, in the SNP's case, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK, that the UK should stay in the single market - or have something as close to staying in the single market as possible, even if that means accepting the free movement of people/labor in and out of the EU from the UK?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Anything would be preferable to the position May has laid out, and another five years of Tory mis-rule. I would like a reversal of Brexit, but the big stumbling block there is the lack of enough parties standing on a reversal of Brexit platform. The Greens have been calling for a ratification referendum at the end of the negotiations, with a "stay in the EU" option for those unhappy with what the government has cooked up, the SNP would try to take Scotland back into the EU though I doubt they would campaign on keeping the UK as a whole in the EU. But, I don't see the Greens getting more than a handful of seats (which would be great in itself), and the SNP could sweep the board in Scotland and only have influence as a king-maker for a coalition (and, another IndyRef at a time chosen by the Scottish Parliament would be the price for that, not support for remaining in the EU).
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?
quote:To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
quote:They could but, if you'll forgive me, you're posting like all this is happening in a vacuum where Brexit is the only thing happening. For a tiny number of people on both sides of the debate, that's true. It's also true that it's going to colour every aspect of life in the UK for years, *however* schools, hospitals, defence, everything else has still got to go on and people are being asked to vote on all those things as well.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:But couldn't Labour, the SNP, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all agree that if Brexit does happen (suppose the EU won't let the UK go back on Invoking Article 50), and, in the SNP's case, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK, that the UK should stay in the single market - or have something as close to staying in the single market as possible, even if that means accepting the free movement of people/labor in and out of the EU from the UK?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Anything would be preferable to the position May has laid out, and another five years of Tory mis-rule. I would like a reversal of Brexit, but the big stumbling block there is the lack of enough parties standing on a reversal of Brexit platform. The Greens have been calling for a ratification referendum at the end of the negotiations, with a "stay in the EU" option for those unhappy with what the government has cooked up, the SNP would try to take Scotland back into the EU though I doubt they would campaign on keeping the UK as a whole in the EU. But, I don't see the Greens getting more than a handful of seats (which would be great in itself), and the SNP could sweep the board in Scotland and only have influence as a king-maker for a coalition (and, another IndyRef at a time chosen by the Scottish Parliament would be the price for that, not support for remaining in the EU).
Originally posted by stonespring:
If this succeeded and a very unstable anti-Tory coalition managed to negotiate a very soft Brexit (if not a reversal of Brexit, given that Article 50 has already been invoked) before collapsing and there being another election, would this be preferable to stable Tory government and Brexit negotiations proceeding with the position that May has laid out?
quote:I'm currently halfway through a glass of Ben Nevis 10 but it isn't very nice, if that's any consolation. If someone could recommend me some sherry monsters I'd be very much obliged.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Dear God, how depressing it all is.
Where's that bottle of single malt?
IJ
quote:It should be possible. Though it still doesn't leave a voting option for those of us who think that leaving the EU is a totally idiotic move based on the results of a poorly conceived and executed referendum. But, we've already done the stupid stuff and can't go back to where we were, even if we revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU the political realities of our relations with the other nations in Europe have already been changed.
Originally posted by stonespring:
But couldn't Labour, the SNP, the Greens, and the Lib Dems all agree that if Brexit does happen (suppose the EU won't let the UK go back on Invoking Article 50), and, in the SNP's case, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK, that the UK should stay in the single market - or have something as close to staying in the single market as possible, even if that means accepting the free movement of people/labor in and out of the EU from the UK?
quote:You shouldn't be reading the red-tops. It's bad for your health.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've just seen today's Daily Mirror - the *Daily Mirror* page 6-7 warning that any Labour MP with a majority under 5,000 is at "serious risk" - that's 25% of them.
Dear God in heaven.
quote:It is, but we have them all in our office - useful for knowing what people are being told...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:You shouldn't be reading the red-tops. It's bad for your health.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've just seen today's Daily Mirror - the *Daily Mirror* page 6-7 warning that any Labour MP with a majority under 5,000 is at "serious risk" - that's 25% of them.
Dear God in heaven.
quote:with the polls as they are, that's not on the cards either...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the Tories try to run a minority government
quote:As I said above, I think there is at least a chance that the polls are wrong.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
with the polls as they are, that's not on the cards either...
quote:In my post earlier I was talking about self-identifying Trotskyists. There are about 200 of them. Momementum are less as Trotskyist than the CoE is Forward in Faith.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
quote:This is about as accurate as calling Theresa May a fascist.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
quote:Including, quite possibly, it's Leader.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
....there are a lot of ordinary Party members who prefer doctrinal purity to electability.
quote:And yet an awful lot of people from his own part of the political spectrum find him difficult to work with ...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people
quote:A very good chance, I'd say. I'm not ruling out a hung parliament.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:As I said above, I think there is at least a chance that the polls are wrong.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
with the polls as they are, that's not on the cards either...
quote:But they're all critics of Corbyn. Nothing they say can possibly be true.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:And yet an awful lot of people from his own part of the political spectrum find him difficult to work with ...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people
quote:That reminds me of someone else who was considered unelectable ...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:But they're all critics of Corbyn. Nothing they say can possibly be true.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:And yet an awful lot of people from his own part of the political spectrum find him difficult to work with ...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Corbyn has no problem co-operating with other people
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:I appreciate that this is the internet and therefore you can all choose to believe me or not but I second this entirely.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've met Corbyn: first when he was my local councillor (truly dreadful, everything, but everything, was related to the class struggle) and then socially through a relative.
I have to tell you, the thought of this man as PM is terrifying for the simple reason that he is really, really THICK. Even if you leave to one side the fact that he could start an argument if left in a room by himself, he really isn't very bright. To be blunt, I'd be more sanguine about Ken Livingstone as prospective PM than Corbyn (I can't believe I just wrote that but...)
quote:Not sure why tactical voting requires a huge centralised website.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Here is The Independent report on it.
quote:Momentum members look like old-fashioned Clause 4 Labourites to me. That's a long way from any kind of Trot. Some are Marxist-Leninists, but that isn't Trotskyist either. Do get your Socialists right please.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people who contemplate tactical voting would presumably know (or, be able to find out easily enough) which candidate is most likely to beat the Tory candidate (or, Labour etc depending on who you want to keep out). That just requires looking at past voting patterns (the BBC has an extensive database of election results, other sources of such information are available).
quote:Yes, but clearly her objective is to clarify the attitude of each candidate regarding Brexit, which is not necessarily as clear, as some candidates might not have any voting record to go on.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Most people who contemplate tactical voting would presumably know (or, be able to find out easily enough) which candidate is most likely to beat the Tory candidate (or, Labour etc depending on who you want to keep out). That just requires looking at past voting patterns (the BBC has an extensive database of election results, other sources of such information are available).
quote:While it is a single issue it does not have a single potential outcome. Between the "Norway Position" through what appears to be the "Golden Option" (Single market of goods and services but no freedom of movement) to a simple Hard Brexit followed by decades of trade negotiations, there must be dozens of possibilities.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
For her (the PM) it's clearly not about party but about that single issue. So you need to know which candidate you are aiming for and against on that one issue.
quote:Yes, she's obviously aiming for at least that level of knowledge
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:While it is a single issue it does not have a single potential outcome. Between the "Norway Position" through what appears to be the "Golden Option" (Single market of goods and services but no freedom of movement) to a simple Hard Brexit followed by decades of trade negotiations, there must be dozens of possibilities.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
For her (the PM) it's clearly not about party but about that single issue. So you need to know which candidate you are aiming for and against on that one issue.
quote:It just doesn't really help much as it doesn't strengthen our position with the people we are negotiating with, in my opinion. Nor does it help if your preferred Brexit candidate sucks on other issues that are important to you...
Gina Miller said the group called Best for Britain will aim to back parliamentary candidates from all parties “who campaign for a real final vote on Brexit, including rejecting any deal that leaves Britain worse off.”
quote:There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist, one of which is the Socialist Party who as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition which also include RMT members, who represent a bigger group.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Momentum members look like old-fashioned Clause 4 Labourites to me. That's a long way from any kind of Trot. Some are Marxist-Leninists, but that isn't Trotskyist either. Do get your Socialists right please.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:To the rest of us, who aren't interested in 'no-true-Trotskyist' dogma-fests, Momentum are Trots.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Momentum is not a Trotksyite organisation. The Trotskyites were trying to take it over in a coup - they may still be trying. But that doesn't mean that they've succeeded.
quote:OK perhaps Trotskyist or Trotskyite the way it was bandied about in the 1970's and 80's isn't an accurate description of movements such as Momentum, but many of its older members are survivors of Militant Tendency, which was expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980's. So let's make no mistake about who these people are and the malign influence they have in the British political system. And of course
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist
quote:To get any evidence to back up the claim of your first paragraph? Perhaps one could read this views of someone who used to be in Militant for some enlightenment.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:OK perhaps Trotskyist or Trotskyite the way it was bandied about in the 1970's and 80's isn't an accurate description of movements such as Momentum, but many of its older members are survivors of Militant Tendency, which was expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980's. So let's make no mistake about who these people are and the malign influence they have in the British political system. And of course
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist
John McDonnell makes no secret of his hero worship of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, whose Little Red Book he's been seen to quote from in the House of Commons. I want to see a Labour Party I can vote for with the enthusiasm I had in 1997. But I would move heaven and earth to keep this shower of shit as far from power as possible even if it means voting Tory.
quote:Fascinating, I'd very much like to hear more about this if it is at all possible. I can't imagine a circumstance where Momentum Labour people collaborate with a Tory - that's quite mind-bending.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Given that I strongly suspect Momentum members of covert collaboration with the Conservatives in a local by-election for local party-political reasons, I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of faith in the 'purity' of their position ...
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
quote:I'm happy to deal with this by PM rather than on a public forum. It surprised me too. Nothing would surprise me now.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Fascinating, I'd very much like to hear more about this if it is at all possible. I can't imagine a circumstance where Momentum Labour people collaborate with a Tory - that's quite mind-bending.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Given that I strongly suspect Momentum members of covert collaboration with the Conservatives in a local by-election for local party-political reasons, I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of faith in the 'purity' of their position ...
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
quote:They voted to amend out all the objectionable bits of the Bill. Once the amendments had been voted down they abstained because there were positive bits of the Bill and they didn't want Osborne smirking that they'd voted against the positive bits every time they came up for the next five years.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Give me a hard-left-winger over someone who abstained on the Welfare Bill of 2015 (like all of the candidates in the 2015 apart from Corbyn)
quote:In general I've not had the same experience as you - at least among the newer members of momentum. Some of the older members are the remnants of former Trotsykite groups and some are fairly unpleasant, but about on par with some of the younger conservative activists I know (aka the Lynton Crosby tendency).
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In another context I'm sure they'd have been all sweetness and light ... but there is something toxic about Momentum, in the same way as there is something quite toxic about religious fundamentalism.
quote:Yes
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Party member here.
Nah, he's not talking for me.
Is he talking for any party member here?
quote:That's because virtually everything is so related.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I've met Corbyn: first when he was my local councillor (truly dreadful, everything, but everything, was related to the class struggle)
quote:Unite is a Trade Union. Surely its "political vision" must be the political vision of its members, and not the political vision of Len McCluskey.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As both Umunna and Hunt had refused to serve in Corby's shadow cabinet, Coyne was given a written warning that his conduct was as odds "with Unite's political vision."
quote:Absolutely, except I would draw a distinction between individuals and the movement. I don't think Momentum as a movement is intrinsically toxic in the way you seem to describe - completely agree on a few individuals within it.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Chris Stiles. Sure. I'd make no distinction between toxic young Tory activists and toxic young Momentum ones.
quote:So it looks like the other 27 states would be happy. Now, if all Remainers vote for the Lib Dems..
Speaking after a meeting with the prime minister in Downing Street, Antonio Tajani insisted that her triggering of the departure process last month could be reversed easily by the remaining EU members if there was a change of UK government after the general election, and that it would not even require a court case.
quote:I suppose that the Lib Dems found themselves in power they might decide to take it as a mandate to do so. Once they've stopped pinching themselves that is. If your party isn't composed of xenophobic gits why would you want the economic consequences of leaving to happen on your watch?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, if the Lib Dems were to actually want to reverse Brexit
quote:Agreed. Plus I've found way more toxic people on the right of the Labour party than on the left. The shit flinging by Progress and their fellow travellers has been a thing to behold over the last 2 years.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Absolutely, except I would draw a distinction between individuals and the movement. I don't think Momentum as a movement is intrinsically toxic in the way you seem to describe - completely agree on a few individuals within it.
quote:It was never down to the British as to whether we leave. Article 50 nitwithstanding if the 27 say we stay then we stay. That has always been the bottom line. The Brexit vote was about a desire to leave, but it was never our decision, the decision as to whether we leave has always been with the EU members, and nowhere else.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:So it looks like the other 27 states would be happy. Now, if all Remainers vote for the Lib Dems..
Speaking after a meeting with the prime minister in Downing Street, Antonio Tajani insisted that her triggering of the departure process last month could be reversed easily by the remaining EU members if there was a change of UK government after the general election, and that it would not even require a court case.
quote:No, garbage. The 27 cannot force a state to remain part of the EU.
Originally posted by balaam:
It was never down to the British as to whether we leave. Article 50 nitwithstanding if the 27 say we stay then we stay. That has always been the bottom line. The Brexit vote was about a desire to leave, but it was never our decision, the decision as to whether we leave has always been with the EU members, and nowhere else.
quote:No, sorry that's bullshit. The EU was set up by nations which volunteered to surrender some powers for the sake of the thing which became the EU. Of course nobody can tell an independent state that they're not allowed to leave a super-national group they've volunteered to join in the first place. If that really was the case then the UK wouldn't be a nation state at all.
Originally posted by balaam:
That is the only vote that counts, not the referendum, not the parliamentary votes, not this June's General Election. The above are important, but the actal leave decision is made by the EU states.
quote:I'm not speaking for my own opinion here, but I can't understand how any passionate Remainer in England could vote any other way than Lib Dem. They are the only party totally committed to reversing the decision made last June. Of course the Scots have their own option in the SNP. Lib Dem support should surge in this forthcoming election.
Originally posted by Cod:
Now, if all Remainers vote for the Lib Dems..
quote:Perhaps my mistake "to get" instead of "you got" confused you, and that's why you haven't answered my question.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:To get any evidence to back up the claim of your first paragraph?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:OK perhaps Trotskyist or Trotskyite the way it was bandied about in the 1970's and 80's isn't an accurate description of movements such as Momentum, but many of its older members are survivors of Militant Tendency, which was expelled from the Labour Party in the 1980's. So let's make no mistake about who these people are and the malign influence they have in the British political system. And of course
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist
John McDonnell makes no secret of his hero worship of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, whose Little Red Book he's been seen to quote from in the House of Commons. I want to see a Labour Party I can vote for with the enthusiasm I had in 1997. But I would move heaven and earth to keep this shower of shit as far from power as possible even if it means voting Tory.
quote:Nor, even if they get the sort of win they'd like to get, will the Conservatives get 48%, yet alone 52%. It's only ever been in the eras when there were actually or de facto only two parties that anyone has got such a proportion of the votes. Even Tony Blair in 1997, with a majority of 179 got that on only 42% of the vote.
Originally posted by Cod:
... (Not that I see the LDs getting 48%, but it's interesting to speculate).
quote:Leaving out the vague ones and the ones he hasn't really shown he would do anything credible about like 'Holding the Tories to account over Brexit', I reckon I disagree with over half of them. And I'm not a Conservative. I'd be hard pushed to say which of the Corbyn-McDonnell Labour Party or the Brexit Conservatives stands lower in my estimation.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
... In other news, for everyone else,how many of Labour's policies do you actually disagree with?
The article says "Corbyn's policies", when in fact these are not just his.
quote:Really ? Said by whom ? The main source of this is Laura Kussenberg.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's said that the count for the leadership is too close to call.
quote:There is plenty of evidence of the connection between Momentum and Militant and other hard left organisations associated with the Labour Party in the 1980's. I would agree with the commentator that Momentum should be proscribed. The rest of my paragraph was my personal opinion that Momentum is a malign influence on the Labour Party and British politics. I stand by that.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Perhaps my mistake "to get" instead of "you got" confused you, and that's why you haven't answered my question
quote:Well I'll wait until the results are published before commenting on them. But that these people's block votes should have any bearing on a Labour leadership contest is an affront to democracy.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
For the record coyne was originally nominated by 187 branches, McCluskey by 1,185. It's highly unlikely it was all that close.
quote:How do the branches choose who to nominate? Do they poll their members, or does the branch leadership pick someone?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
For the record coyne was originally nominated by 187 branches, McCluskey by 1,185. It's highly unlikely it was all that close.
quote:Ah, the Socialist Party. I mentioned them earlier:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:There is plenty of evidence of the connection between Momentum and Militant and other hard left organisations associated with the Labour Party in the 1980's.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Perhaps my mistake "to get" instead of "you got" confused you, and that's why you haven't answered my question
quote:The article you provided a link to says:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There are only minor parties who call themselves Trotskyist, one of which is the Socialist Party who as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition which also include RMT members, who represent a bigger group.
A grand total of 92 TUSC members joined the Labour Party in 2015. That's out of 350,000 who either joined the party as members or supporters during the leadership campaign of 2015 or shortly afterwards. The TUSC entry into Labour that period represents 0.03% of Labour members and supporters.
quote:Italics mine.
1,000 are believed to be members of other far-left parties.
quote:So you'd ban a movement due to 0.52% of its members? You're hardly Abraham arguing with God here. Nah, I support democracy, myself.
I would agree with the commentator that Momentum should be proscribed. The rest of my paragraph was my personal opinion that Momentum is a malign influence on the Labour Party and British politics. I stand by that.
quote:1. My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such. There's no point having good ideas if you don't have the organisational skills to implement them. And if one is serious about opposing the economics of austerity, I don't see the value in supporting a bloke whom anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
In other news, for everyone else,how many of Labour's policies do you actually disagree with?
quote:Well I disagree with his policies as well. Pumping £500 billion into an already debt ridden economy is a complete folly which will store up untold troubles for future generations.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such.
quote:and
Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years.
quote:Furthermore, since 2010, the debt has written by 50%. Sauce
First, Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.
And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average.
quote:That's a fairly good example of the distinction I'm making. AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt, and I see no evidence to suggest Mr Corbyn possesses the requisite financial acumen to ensure this would happen.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well I disagree with his policies as well. Pumping £500 billion into an already debt ridden economy is a complete folly which will store up untold troubles for future generations.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such.
quote:And George Osborne? No "What if?" is needed. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer and he was a bloody awful Chancellor of the Exchequer. The worst for decades if not centuries. Wedded to the concept of "Austerity" even when six years of it had achieved nothing. Hammond looks a genius by comparison. Corbyn, or better still another anti-Brexit PM could find a better chancellor by hooking a random stranger off the street.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:That's a fairly good example of the distinction I'm making. AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt, and I see no evidence to suggest Mr Corbyn possesses the requisite financial acumen to ensure this would happen.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well I disagree with his policies as well. Pumping £500 billion into an already debt ridden economy is a complete folly which will store up untold troubles for future generations.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My issue has always been more with his incompetence rather than his policies as such.
quote:The idea that there are no 'shovel ready' programs in the UK is somewhat laughable given the parlous state of the country's infrastructure. Additionally, a significant amount of the cuts have been directed maintenance of existing infrastructure - which will build up to a very expensive bill in the future (roads being the obvious example), on balance even reversing these cuts alone would have a salutary effect and will actually save money in the future.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt
quote:Which is an example of what happens when you're only looking at the balance sheet for the current year, or even Parliamentary term. Even if the cuts in investment were resulting in a cut in current government borrowing (which they aren't), the resulting reduction in national debt is only in current cash flow - it's also building a debt of future work (which doesn't go into the books for this year, and so is invisible if that's all you look at). In the medium-long term investment in maintaining infrastructure reduces debt - but only if you look at the larger picture rather than the current set of books.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Additionally, a significant amount of the cuts have been directed maintenance of existing infrastructure - which will build up to a very expensive bill in the future (roads being the obvious example)
quote:And yet nowhere on the Labour Party website* can I find any specifics on which of those shovel-ready infrastructure projects is going to be funded by this £500bn investment. High-Speed Rail across the Pennines? Dedicated freight lines to separate freight and passenger traffic on the railways? An M62 relief road round Manchester? Expanded ports for post-Panamax container traffic? The impression given is that he pitched for a nice dramatic round number first, and will work out how to spend it later.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The idea that there are no 'shovel ready' programs in the UK is somewhat laughable given the parlous state of the country's infrastructure.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AIUI, the economics is sound provided that the economic growth generated by whatever you spend the £500bn on is greater than the growth in the national debt
quote:Well, given Mr Corbyn's current record of appointing people (e.g. to his media team), and his aforementioned inability to work with people who are on the same part of the political spectrum as him, that's not a bet I'm willing to take.
and you aren't necessarily betting on Corbyn's financial acumen, rather than acumen of the kinds of people he is likely to appoint.
quote:On the other hand, I'm not seeing any evidence that Theresa May is any better at making concrete policy proposals. She's just got a better media operation that is better at hiding it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Or the inability of even his allies to articulate what he actually wants to achieve in concrete terms.
quote:Being scrupulously fair to all sides on this one, we're presumably about to get manifestos
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:On the other hand, I'm not seeing any evidence that Theresa May is any better at making concrete policy proposals. She's just got a better media operation that is better at hiding it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Or the inability of even his allies to articulate what he actually wants to achieve in concrete terms.
quote:Yes you are
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
we're presumably about to get manifestos
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Although oddly it would probably work for the more pragmatic leavers and remainers. Disingenuously and for the wrong reasons getting to a reasonable place.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
a business-friendly Brexit (continuity of open markets & cheap labour.) This is what the Tory donors want but it is definitely not what the folks who voted Brexit had in mind. By the time they work out they've been conned she'll have had a good innings and it'll be time to hand over to the next guy/gal.
quote:You keep repeating this as if it's a known fact, but knowing a fair few people on Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, and knowing a couple of them who have worked with Corbyn for years, it's not supported by the evidence. I know there are people who have refused to work with him, but that doesn't tell us anything about Corbyn's abilities so much as it tells us the sort of petulant sulks that "centrists" get into when they lose internal elections.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
and his aforementioned inability to work with people who are on the same part of the political spectrum as him,
quote:Perhaps it not all petulant sulking. There are many of us who are proud to be centrists, who believe that the British people respond best to consensus politics, not to being taken over by McCluskey's evil cabal. The same McCluskey who just got re-elected narrowly on a 12.2% turnout and is already wreaking revenge on the man who dared to challenge him. An inspirational lesson in democracy indeed!
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
but that doesn't tell us anything about Corbyn's abilities so much as it tells us the sort of petulant sulks that "centrists" get into when they lose internal elections.
quote:Exhibit A: David Blanchflower - no internal elections here
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:You keep repeating this as if it's a known fact, but knowing a fair few people on Corbyn's part of the political spectrum, and knowing a couple of them who have worked with Corbyn for years, it's not supported by the evidence. I know there are people who have refused to work with him, but that doesn't tell us anything about Corbyn's abilities so much as it tells us the sort of petulant sulks that "centrists" get into when they lose internal elections.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
and his aforementioned inability to work with people who are on the same part of the political spectrum as him,
quote:And let's not forget that a number of those people spent their time in the shadow cabinet briefing against Corbyn off the record.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
In his first Shadow Cabinet, Corbyn chose the following people:
Angela Eagle, someone who was liked by Blair, voted for the Iraq war (and three times against investigating it).
Andy Burnham, someone who was his main challenger.
Hilary Benn, someone pro-nuclear weapons and of course, someone who supported Burham in the 2015 leadership election.
Chris Bryant, who backed Yvonne Cooper in the leadership election of 2015.
Veron Croaker, who chaired Cooper's leadership campaign.
Maria Eagle, who is pro-Trident.
To summarise, he chose people who think politically different to him. As stated above by Arethosemyfeet, later opposition to him came from the centrists.
quote:A bit like the PMs Chief of Staff and Press Secretary leaving the day after she announced the election then?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
To summarise, he chose people who think politically different to him.
quote:That a particular criticism of Mr Corbyn comes from the centre isn't the knockdown argument against Mr Corbyn's incompetence that his supporters seem to think it is.
As stated above by Arethosemyfeet, later opposition to him came from the centrists.
quote:What gives you the impression that I support the PM?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:A bit like the PMs Chief of Staff and Press Secretary leaving the day after she announced the election then?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.
quote:I don't necessarily. But a couple of people leaving isn't necessarily a indicative of 'utter chaos' - you need to establish a baseline of churn.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:What gives you the impression that I support the PM?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:A bit like the PMs Chief of Staff and Press Secretary leaving the day after she announced the election then?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Exhibit H: The utter chaos in Mr Corbyn's staff team - again nothing to do with internal elections.
quote:There is no baseline of anything in this mess that I would choose.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I take your point - but as Ms May (in some sources at least) has a reputation for being difficult to work for, I'm not sure that's the baseline I'd choose ...
quote:That would be the Scots. Nicola for PM?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive
quote:She's my mp and we wouldn't have selected for candidate had she not been left wing.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
E: Thangam Debbonaire[/URL] - for obvious reasons she doesn't have much of a voting record so it's hard to judge if she's a centrist or not
quote:PM for an independent Scotland. Let's rebuild Hadrian's wall. I'll walk its ramparts to repel the southern barbarians. We can use Trident to guard the sea borders.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would be the Scots. Nicola for PM?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive
quote:The comparison is invalid because Corbyn pretty much always was open about it being Blair's policies he disagreed with. The right of the Labour Party stirred up accusations of incompetence rather than argue for their political ideas (presumably because they either don't have any beyond aping the tories or they know they can't win with them). It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
We might as well say that all of Mr Corbyn's criticisms of Mr Blair are similarly invalid because they were politically motivated or because Mr Corbyn was in a petulant strop that Blairism and not Corbynism was the dominant philosophy in the Labour Party.
quote:You do realise of course that Hadrian's Wall is entirely within England? From Wallsend in the east to Bowness-on Solway in the west.....
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:PM for an independent Scotland. Let's rebuild Hadrian's wall. I'll walk its ramparts to repel the southern barbarians. We can use Trident to guard the sea borders.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would be the Scots. Nicola for PM?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lilBuddha - desperately wishing for an intelligent species to arise or arrive
quote:Did you ever watch the Vice News documentary about Corbyn?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The right of the Labour Party stirred up accusations of incompetence rather than argue for their political ideas
quote:That is neither what he said, nor what he meant - and you know it.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.
quote:I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:That is neither what he said, nor what he meant - and you know it.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.
The not-very-hidden message I read into what he was saying was 'things were better when I was running the show. What you all need is for me to come back again'. You may deplore even the thought of such a thing, but that isn't what you're accusing him of either saying or thinking.
quote:Blair was calling on people to vote for whomever could best oppose the present Tory government on Brexit. As opposed to Corbyn who is definitely going to bark at May's Brexit plans a lot tomorrow once he's finished rolling over and letting her tickle his tummy. It's bark tomorrow and bark yesterday but always roll over and tummy tickles today with Corbyn.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's become abundantly clear that the right of the party (including Blair, today) would rather have a tory government than a left wing Labour one.
quote:Yes, the Alastair Campbell message grid is clearly still in use, keeping all Labour campaigners firmly focussed on the most vital issues of our national life and helping them avoid getting sucked into pointless arguments over irrelevant trivia.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.
quote:In a time where the Union's been put under more and more stress by a government that doesn't care about the country, it's not irrational.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.
quote:It just suits purpose so perfectly. Call the extra bit interest on the loan of a country or penalties for the abuse of same.
Originally posted by Stephen:
You do realise of course that Hadrian's Wall is entirely within England?
quote:Terrific idea! Surround them and keep them in line.
Actually that sounds like a good idea.....hmmm......I wonder if Wales can get in on the act? I like Scotland
quote:No, you're quite right - I heard him say exactly that on BBC R4 this morning.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?
quote:This seems to run counter to your preceding post.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
More specifically, many Scots feel ignored by being "dragged by England", particularly given the way the promises of the referendum before were broken.
Northern Ireland is in a difficult situation also with the brexit vote, and realistically, a competent government is going to need to make a bespoke arrangement for it (and Gibraltor) (bets we don't get one) that meets with the approval of the country to the south and doesn't divide a barely mended divide.
The far right have claimed the flag of St George.
And we English always whine about the Scots getting their day off anyway (even if it is at the cost of another, we forget that). (More cynically the right media labled Ed's father as the man who hated Britain, and exploited comments in Kent to make labour seem anti St George)
Then there's Wales, who's flag is missed out already.
quote:It's the best policy either side has announced so far. Right wing, left wing, capitalism, socialism, brexit, bremain - I have opinions about all of these. But offer me four extra days off work and by Jove I'll ignore them all
Originally posted by Gee D:
I like Corbyn's sense of priorities - Day 3 of an election campaign, he announces a policy to introduce 4 new public holidays, one for each of the patron saints.
quote:Your earlier post talks of increasing divisions between the various constituents of the UK; this proposal gives greater emphasis to separate traditions.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
How?
quote:Is that then blatantly encouraging someone to vote against an official Labour candidate?
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:No, you're quite right - I heard him say exactly that on BBC R4 this morning.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?
quote:IIRC parties name someone as their provisional parliamentary candidate: amongst other things it avoids the problem that public servants have to resign their office before they can stand for parliament.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd guess that legally there are no candidates until the acting returning officer publishes the list of those who have properly been registered in each constituency.
quote:Or, among others, "Tory in Lab" and (I like this) "Rainy Blot".
Originally posted by David Goode:
"Tony Blair" is an anagram of "Libya torn".
quote:Yes, I think so. President Carter's name sort of leaps to mind in this context - and I think you can admire his humility without necessarily admiring either his policies or his presidency.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Probably a tangent for another thread, but is humility really compatible with such enormous responsibility?
quote:I might add Baldwin to the list - gave away something like 20% of his fortune to help pay off the WW1 war debt without telling anyone he'd done it - I can't imagine any of the current crop doing the equivalent now, and certainly not doing it without any publicity. He certainly manipulated his own image, a la Wilson, but he was decent with it - just finished Roy Jenkins' biography of him as it happens.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are plenty of cynical ones, who are good at manipulating, e.g. Wilson.
quote:He was also one of the "Guilty Men", so...
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I might add Baldwin to the list - gave away something like 20% of his fortune to help pay off the WW1 war debt without telling anyone he'd done it
quote:It isn't as clear as that, with charity and celebrity. Publicity for them equals publicity, and therefore donations, to the charity. But suspicion as to their motive. Prince has been lauded for his private support for charity, but how much more help would those charities have received if his devoted fans had known?
Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation but even then he quietly got on with it all without publicity, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt there.
quote:In which he succeeded to a degree. From the Davenport-Hines book on the era he seems to emerge chastened rather than particularly changed.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation ..
quote:I'm quite prepared to have a good go at defending Baldwin, although I suspect this isn't the thread!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It isn't as clear as that, with charity and celebrity. Publicity for them equals publicity, and therefore donations, to the charity. But suspicion as to their motive. Prince has been lauded for his private support for charity, but how much more help would those charities have received if his devoted fans had known?
Then there're those who get humility thrust upon them - John Profumo is the model for this - devoted decades post the titular scandal to quiet (and very effective) charity work. You could say this was an attempt to rebuild his reputation but even then he quietly got on with it all without publicity, so I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt there.
quote:Labour certainly has an instinct for suicide. I feel sorry for the poor and the disabled, who are going to get shafted, well, shafted again.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has just published a poll, showing the Tories 10 points ahead of Labour IN WALES. This would give them 10 former Labour seats, and an overall majority of seats in Wales. This is through-the-looking-glass politics.
Most Welsh polling data is based on subsets from UK-wide polls, and is therefore not very reliable. But this was specifically commissioned by ITV Wales.
quote:That's why I think it's important that it's all 4 [Bank holidays] everywhere. It's celebrating all the parts together. A United Kingdom.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:Your earlier post talks of increasing divisions between the various constituents of the UK; this proposal gives greater emphasis to separate traditions.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
How?
quote:Well, Labour seem incoherent on Brexit, and just about everything else. Admittedly, the Tories are also incoherent, and have made more U-turns than an anaconda. However, this seems irrelevant, since politics isn't based on rational stuff today. Mrs May has a good image, even if it is a fraud.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It would appear that all across the UK the Tories are getting back most of the voters they lost to UKIP, without losing too many Tory Remainers to the Lib Dems. Leave voters from Labour and Plaid Cymru are also contemplating the unthinkable.
I'm starting to wonder if there's still a "shy Tory" effect: I know of Brexit supporters who have never voted Tory before who will admit, when pressed, that they are thinking of doing just that. Whether they would say so to a pollster is another matter; it's entirely possible that Tory support is actually understated.
quote:When pressed on whether he was suggesting people should vote against a Labour-Brexit candidate he said they should vote Labour. I'm sure he's aware he's giving conflicting advice.
Originally posted by beatmenace:
quote:Is that then blatantly encouraging someone to vote against an official Labour candidate?
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:No, you're quite right - I heard him say exactly that on BBC R4 this morning.
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm an outsider but from what I've heard Blair say on other occasions it seems he wants to do anything he can to stop Brexit or make it as soft as possible - and he is encouraging people to vote for whatever candidate in their district seems most likely to make that happen, regardless of party. Or am I getting him all wrong?
I thought you could be expelled from the party for doing that.
quote:In addition and related. Labour seem to have ended up blamed by both sides of Brexit (as I was worried about at the time).
Originally posted by Cod:
None of this accounts for geographical spread, and it will be interesting to see how well Tory support holds up in London. However, Brexit may not have much effect. Most Labour voters voted Remain. Most Tories voted Leave. The Remain vote in the south of England mostly came from non-Tories.
quote:OK, it's the Internet, but I can't imagine anyone bothering to make such a comment before. It wouldn't even be half-convincing trolling.
I’ll tell you the reality of how this is panning-out in the real world.
I am 60 years old. I am a member of Plaid Cymru and I go out campaigning for them etc etc and have been for the forth-coming council elections. I consider myself a traditional working class left-wing pro-welsh independence republican.
I have never, ever, in my entire life ever even considered voting Tory.
However, just this once I will be lending Theresa May my vote in June. BREXIT is far far bigger than party idealogies. We have gt to get on with it and we have got to be seen as having a strong pro-BREXIT government in power.
And I know I’m not the only one that’s doing likewise. I know Plaid and Labour councillors, Plaid members and Plaid and Labour voters that will, in the secrecy of the booth, be putting their cross against the tory candidate. I even know some Lib Dems that will be doing likewise.
Personally, I think the level of Tory support is understated.
Leanne Wood doesn’t seem to have any idea what’s going on in her pwn grass roots support and I would be very very surprised if Plaid increased it’s seats.
quote:I think the short answer is 'because the Tories have the right-wing press on their side'. The most widely read newspapers are the Sun and the Daily Heil, both rabidly pro-Brexit. The slightly longer answer is 'because the Armageddon that the Remain campaign predicted hasn't happened yet' (well of course it hasn't: we're still in the EU at the moment, and when we leave the Brexiteers can blame any problems on EU sabotage or "Remoaners").
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
quote:Text book demonstration of much mythed Tory Loyalty in action - looks (at the moment, there's still plenty of time for all this to change) like if you're a Tory voter then that's more important than anything else, including your personal position on Brexit, so you'll be voting Tory.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories' core vote is holding up well, they have hoovered up most of the UKIP vote, and they are gaining Leave voters from other parties.
quote:And this is what those of us who don't support them find so annoying; it's all a game to them, and their only aim is to hold onto power for as long as possible. This is true of many politicians, but the current Conservative Party has taken it to new levels (or perhaps we should say depths).
*If* this is the way it goes in 6 weeks' time then, regardless of political affiliation, the Tories will in the short term have played a political blinder.
quote:absolutely agree - but even as someone that's more sanguine about the Tories I do think they're storing up problems for themselves. Lets assume a massive majority for the purposes of what I'm about to say (I'm actually open to anything from a hung parliament to a majority of 200+ still at the moment):
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:quote:And this is what those of us who don't support them find so annoying; it's all a game to them, and their only aim is to hold onto power for as long as possible. This is true of many politicians, but the current Conservative Party has taken it to new levels (or perhaps we should say depths).
*If* this is the way it goes in 6 weeks' time then, regardless of political affiliation, the Tories will in the short term have played a political blinder.
quote:Anyone who thinks Corbyn will step down just because of an electoral disaster hasn't got the measure of Corbyn. He will stay on as leader until he has firmly established a hard-left dynasty.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
If Jeremy stays on until he can get is leadership election changes through then, as Nick Cohen says in Sunday's Observer, there's no reason why we couldn't be exactly where we are now at the next election too...
quote:As someone who has never voted Labour* but nevertheless believes in halfway decent oppositions to keep government honest you've no idea how much that depresses me.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I currently think it is more likely than not that we will be here again in five years' time.
quote:To be precise, 80% of the press in this country is owned by six aging white right-wing male oligarchs.
Originally posted by Jane R:
stonespring:quote:I think the short answer is 'because the Tories have the right-wing press on their side'.
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
quote:And how many people actually read those papers?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:To be precise, 80% of the press in this country is owned by six aging white right-wing male oligarchs.
Originally posted by Jane R:
stonespring:quote:I think the short answer is 'because the Tories have the right-wing press on their side'.
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
quote:I appreciate that at best this will probably provoke gales of hollow laughter from you, but there is a small, rational, reason why *this* time it might work. And I say this because it's a small possibility, not because I endorse it or think it will happen.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
support for the bloody Tories - who have absolutely nothing to offer Wales whatsoever. Talk about cutting off your foot to spite your face.
quote:If you look at weekly readership figures rather than daily circulation figures, and include both print and online access, then about 12 million people read The Sun each week, and about 13 million read The Mail or The Mail on Sunday.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And how many people actually read those papers?
quote:Because Leavers are coalescing around the Tories regardless of normal party, and most Tories would rather face electrodes than vote for anyone other than the Tories even when the party is not only not giving them what they want but explicitly not giving them what they want.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
quote:Yes to both of those movements, also switchers to the Tories from all parties (inc Labour) because of Jeremy.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Is it all from UKIP voters switching to the Tories now that UKIP's raison d'etre is gone and Labour leave voters also switching to the Tories?
quote:This bit is the tricky one - people for whom fighting Brexit is the only thing are presumably reflected in the 12% of people intending (currently) to vote LibDem - from which we can deduce that, rightly or wrongly, there aren't many people for whom Brexit is the be all and end all. Bound up in that is the constituency of voters that we could call "against-Brexit-with-every-fibre-of-my-being-but-oh-dear-God-not-Corbyn" who however miserably will either not vote, or hold their nose and vote for someone who isn't going to give them what they want on Brexit.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Where are all the remain voters and the majority in polls who favor a soft Brexit? Are the Tory policies other than Brexit so popular among them?
quote:I'm sure some will think that - personally part of me thinks that way - but that's a different thing to it happening. At this stage I think people are split between rolling the dice in that hope and, what I think hasn't been reflected in the US press but can't be underestimated, as a Remainer last year myself, quite a large constituency of "voted Remain but please just get on with it now."
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do so many of them think giving May a stronger majority will result in a soft Brexit?
quote:I'd have thought almost certainly not, but acquiescing in "just get on with it" as above. I think Mrs May was in the realms of hubris with "the country has come together" bit last week, but I do think that she was groping towards reflecting the fact that the division is there, but many have moved on into sullen making the best of it.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do they trust their local Tory MP to fight for a soft Brexit?
quote:There will be, but the people lashing back are probably overall in a minority vs the "make the best of it" and "stop Labour" tickets.
Originally posted by stonespring:
It just seems odd to me as an outsider that there isn't more of a backlash against the Tories in the areas where the remain vote was high.
quote:This scenario only applies in the case where they also "win loads of seats in places that they shouldn't, some by quite tight margins". In fact, these are likely to be the same sets of seats - so are you saying 'they will win seats they normally wouldn't' or 'they will win seats I think they shouldn't' ?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
*If* the Tories get a big majority, but at the expense of safe seats in Remain areas of the SE, then they might be forced to do more to hold onto such seats over the 5 years and into the next GE.
quote:Honestly? Probably both.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
so are you saying 'they will win seats they normally wouldn't' or 'they will win seats I think they shouldn't' ?
quote:Well perhaps, but surely you can understand why so few people want to vote Labour. When Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, he did so with a million fewer votes than John Major secured in his modest 1992 victory. Labour did so well because the Tory vote collapsed. If Mrs May secures a large victory this time it will be for the same reason. She may pick up a few votes from people returning from UKIP. She could conceivably pick up votes and seats in Scotland from dedicated Unionists. But it will be Labour's blowout that will give her a big lead.
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory
quote:While Major's 1992 victory was modest in terms of seats won, the Conservatives received the largest number of votes ever for a political party in a UK general election. That record remains unbroken (for now...)
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well perhaps, but surely you can understand why so few people want to vote Labour. When Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, he did so with a million fewer votes than John Major secured in his modest 1992 victory.
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory
quote:This is all you needed to say. Unfortunately, it is not the way people think.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is utter madness to vote Tory
quote:In 2015 3.8 million people voted UKIP. Add that to the 11.3 million who voted Tory and you have 15.1 million Tory votes, eclipsing the 14.0 million who voted Tory in 1992.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well perhaps, but surely you can understand why so few people want to vote Labour. When Tony Blair won his landslide victory in 1997, he did so with a million fewer votes than John Major secured in his modest 1992 victory. Labour did so well because the Tory vote collapsed. If Mrs May secures a large victory this time it will be for the same reason.
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory
quote:I never have and never will have any allegiance to a political party. Every election has different issues with different politicians offering different solutions. I don't understand how anyone can say "I'm Labour like my dad and grandad before me." Or say, "I've voted Tory all my life and I won't change." Since I first voted in 1974, I've voted Labour, Conservative and once Liberal(before the Dems were added on). My happiest vote was for Tony Blair in 1997. I voted Tory in 1983 to go against Michael Foot's vision of Labour, and this is why I intend to vote for Mrs May this time around. To destroy Labour in the hope that it will again rise from the ashes. If I'm still alive next time around I will again weigh up where we are and what we're voting for.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally I think that very few people are actually committed to any given party
quote:I just see Tory policies as cruel. Now we have talk of children turning up to school hungry, and teachers giving them food. WTF?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is all you needed to say. Unfortunately, it is not the way people think.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is utter madness to vote Tory
IMO, people who hate Tory will vote Tory because of Brexit.
There will be those who think a unified front, no matter how poor the actual plan, is the strongest position.
quote:Apart from the roads, aquaducts.... All the usual ones that motivate electors in any election. This is a typical general election onto which has been grafted Brexit, independence and Corbyn. For once consitutional questions, depressingly, are going to count as much as the bread and butter stuff.
Originally posted by stonespring:
1. Aside from Brexit, Scottish Independence, and people's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn - what other issues are likely to motivate voters in this election?
quote:In that magical world, yes - on those terms why on earth wouldn't they? The point is more that at the moment the Tories are ahead on management of the economy over Labour in polling even with a disaster priced in, so frankly it doesn't matter - Corbyn has tainted the water.
Originally posted by stonespring:
In a magical world where Brexit might not ruin things economically when it actually happens, would voters on average be pleased with Tory management of the economy under May?
quote:See above, one poll over the weekend even had the Tories more trusted on the NHS than Labour - the NHS FFS. Labour's well has been utterly poisoned to the extent that people might not like what they're getting from the Conservatives, but think it would be worse under anyone else. Now we all know on here how very far from the reality that is but that doesn't matter as we're not the whole electorate.
Originally posted by stonespring:
How do people feel about the state of the NHS, education, welfare, taxes, defense and foreign policy, and anything else you can think of?
quote:The Tories are happy enough - and Tories will vote Tory as I said in an earlier post even when they don't feel represented by the Tories.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Especially, how might a working-class Leave voter who would have traditionally voted Labour or a middle-class-to-wealthy Remain voter who would traditionally have voted Tory feel about these other issues as they currently stand?
quote:Without changing the voting system new parties tend to get crucified at UK elections. You can break through eventually - both Labour and the SNP prove that - but no one's ever done it over night. Best guess? It would indeed be the SDP all over again; they'd get many people go over to them, achieve nothing at the subsequent election as everyone continues to vote red or blue,
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. If there were more time before the election to organize (or if Labour loses the election but Corbyn manages to remain leader), might we see MPs defect to a new party like the SDP? Is it possible some Remain Tories and Wet/Red Tory MPs might be persuaded to join? Or might we see such MPs (Labour and Tory) defect to the Lib Dems?
quote:That was yesterday - in the last hour or so he's just been asked about why they've got selected David Ward* standing for the party in Bradford and he suggested that it's not the leader's job to say whether someone's right to be a candidate or not.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.
quote:They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:That was yesterday - in the last hour or so he's just been asked about why they've got selected David Ward* standing for the party in Bradford and he suggested that it's not the leader's job to say whether someone's right to be a candidate or not.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.
FFS. And they're supposed to be the answer...
*and it's not like David Ward is some random off the streets - Tim Farron, and everyone else in the party, should know exactly who he is and why this would be a PR disaster.
quote:There's a certain selection effect at work here. The media could also ask the same questions of 'vicars daughter' May - she has an equally chequered voting record on SSM and Gay rights.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.
quote:The problem with the LibDems is, and I say this from direct first hand experience, they might have got lots of cash now and tens of thousands of new members, but their organisational capacity and party mindset (particularly with regard to distributed democracy) could be bested by the average parish council.
Originally posted by Callan:
They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.
quote:TM seems to have become decidedly more liberal on the issue in recent years
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:There's a certain selection effect at work here. The media could also ask the same questions of 'vicars daughter' May - she has an equally chequered voting record on SSM and Gay rights.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The LibDems might well pick up some support but Tim Farron is busy getting them all the wrong headlines with his prevarication about SSM and gay sex.
quote:Ward has just been sacked. So that's a point in their favour, after all.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:The problem with the LibDems is, and I say this from direct first hand experience, they might have got lots of cash now and tens of thousands of new members, but their organisational capacity and party mindset (particularly with regard to distributed democracy) could be bested by the average parish council.
Originally posted by Callan:
They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.
A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...
quote:True, but only after Farron was attacked over it at PMQs. It was inevitable that Ward would have to go, but it should have been inevitable that he wouldn't have been selected in the first place.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Ward has just been sacked. So that's a point in their favour, after all.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:The problem with the LibDems is, and I say this from direct first hand experience, they might have got lots of cash now and tens of thousands of new members, but their organisational capacity and party mindset (particularly with regard to distributed democracy) could be bested by the average parish council.
Originally posted by Callan:
They should have suspended the constituency party and come down on the guy like a ton of bricks. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the matter, there's a gap in the market for a centre left party which is opposed to anti-semitism.
A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...
quote:I blame Miliband, if not Brown and Darling. They should have come out fighting on the 'not our fault' line. But the Tory management of the economy - the recovery that isn't - should really be an open goal. It's probably too late to shift the narrative now.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:In that magical world, yes - on those terms why on earth wouldn't they? The point is more that at the moment the Tories are ahead on management of the economy over Labour in polling even with a disaster priced in, so frankly it doesn't matter - Corbyn has tainted the water.
Originally posted by stonespring:
In a magical world where Brexit might not ruin things economically when it actually happens, would voters on average be pleased with Tory management of the economy under May?
quote:Absolutely they should have fought much harder, though it was an uphill battle against the idea in the media that the country was like a household that was living beyond it's means.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I blame Miliband, if not Brown and Darling. They should have come out fighting on the 'not our fault' line. But the Tory management of the economy - the recovery that isn't - should really be an open goal. It's probably too late to shift the narrative now
quote:Yes, Labour have been supine, in allowing the narrative to be determined by others. It happened with austerity, and now it's happening with Brexit.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Absolutely they should have fought much harder, though it was an uphill battle against the idea in the media that the country was like a household that was living beyond it's means.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I blame Miliband, if not Brown and Darling. They should have come out fighting on the 'not our fault' line. But the Tory management of the economy - the recovery that isn't - should really be an open goal. It's probably too late to shift the narrative now
And yes - wages are down in the last 10 years, productivity is flat, the deficit has been growing. The economy hasn't gone anywhere for a very long time - May said as much in todays PMQs
quote:I get sick of this myth being repeated as if it were fact. Ruined the economy how, exactly? by spending money on all those frivolous schools and hospitals?
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.
quote:Except that he could and did do. Labour, after the crash, stimulated the economy and got it going again until the tories smothered the recovery under a blanket of foolish austerity.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.
quote:Yebbut. They're not standing in the election. They're all dead. And Cadburys was bought out and one of their biggest factories was eventually exported to Poland.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Oxfam says 'Give a man a Fish and you will feed him for a Day, give him a Fishing Rod and you provide food for a Lifetime.' That applies to this Country as well. I vote for the Party that offers the best chance of creating meaningful employment (And that doesn't mean in the Arms Trade or Tobacco). A Job not gives money but self-respect. So my heroes are the Quakers like Rowntree, Cadbury and Huntley and Palmer.
quote:Well, that's utterly and completely wrong.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Sorry Gordon Brown ruined the Economy. His famous quote 'I have abolished Boom and Bust' showed huge arrogance, and then when the iceberg struck (Banking Crisis) there was nothing he could do.
quote:That's a mighty strong extrapolation from one data point.
Originally posted by stonespring:
However, it seems unfair, especially now that it is apparent that opposition parties are unlikely to oppose giving a 2/3 majority to allow for a snap election in most cases,
quote:Probably a fair one though - it's hard to see how any opposition could pass up the opportunity to rid the country of a government it thinks is doing a bad job if they claim to want to replace them.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:That's a mighty strong extrapolation from one data point.
Originally posted by stonespring:
However, it seems unfair, especially now that it is apparent that opposition parties are unlikely to oppose giving a 2/3 majority to allow for a snap election in most cases,
quote:They won't. The "strong negotiating position" talk of the Tories is smoke and mirrors, part of the political game. Calling an election now (or, more specifically increasing the Tory majority by doing so) creates an appearance of a stronger position, but it only plays to the UK electorate and the Tory Party itself - it's not something of relevance to the EU side of the negotiations.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.
quote:Although, funnily enough, the Today Programme has reported in the last hour that the mood music from Brussels is that they're actually quite happy with the idea of more Tory MPs and a stronger majority for TM as they think it will make negotiations, and indeed compromise, easier. They have apparently become much more optimistic about everything since last week's announcement.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:They won't. The "strong negotiating position" talk of the Tories is smoke and mirrors, part of the political game. Calling an election now (or, more specifically increasing the Tory majority by doing so) creates an appearance of a stronger position, but it only plays to the UK electorate and the Tory Party itself - it's not something of relevance to the EU side of the negotiations.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.
That appearance of a stronger hand comes through several facets. The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud - by-elections the Tories would struggle to win (what electorate finding the party they voted for last time fraudulently overspent on the election is going to look favourably on another candidate from the same party?). It would be an incredible embarrassment to the Tories to find themselves without a majority in the Commons half way through the 5 year term, even more so when that puts a question mark over the majority David Cameron used to call the Brexit referendum that has put the country in the mess it's in now. An election now papers over that crack and avoids making the dubiousness of the referendum even more apparent.
Added to that is, of course, the fact that the UK electorate as a whole were presented a confusing range of promises for Brexit, many of which were mutually exclusive, and have never had an opportunity to have a say on the form of Brexit. By billing the election as that chance for the UK electorate to say "we trust the Tories to negotiate on our behalf" they gain a semblance of a mandate for their scheme. But, the mandate they'll have will be no stronger or weaker than they had before calling the referendum.
quote:Gently Alan, I think you might be missing a few "allegedlies", and awaiting a few decisions from the CPS - the police pass files to the CPS because they have to on completion of their investigations, it's the CPS' decision on whether a crime has been committed that stands more than I think it's 65% chance of getting a successful prosecution.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud
quote:If the election results in a bigger Tory majority, and therefore Mrs May is not having to keep one eye on her backbench then things probably become easier in negotiations. The EU won't have to be faced with so many mutually contradictory demands coming from the back-seat drivers in the Commons. I don't think it makes the UK government position any stronger or weaker, it might reduce the workload to reach a deal - which is more than enough to make the EU negotiators welcome it. Who wants things to be harder than they need be?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the Today Programme has reported in the last hour that the mood music from Brussels is that they're actually quite happy with the idea of more Tory MPs and a stronger majority for TM as they think it will make negotiations, and indeed compromise, easier. They have apparently become much more optimistic about everything since last week's announcement.
quote:Yes, you are right. The particular MPs in question are innocent, until they've been brought to court and found guilty assuming the evidence is strong enough.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Gently Alan, I think you might be missing a few "allegedlies"
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The most important ISTM is that it gets an election in before a string of by-elections in marginal seats due to Tory MPs forced to stand down due to election expense fraud
quote:Of course there is no one with clean hands. All the parties have overspent and misreported expenses during recent elections. And, they all need to clean up their act. So, none of them can stand on the moral high ground - that doesn't mean that the electorate and the media shouldn't be hounding all of them over the issue.
"one listens for loud condemnation....one listens and the silence is deafening"
wonder why?
quote:I agree - but in this case we have an opposition leader who was desperate for an election for his own reasons. He is absolutely convinced that as soon as he gets out on the campaign trail and puts his socialist beliefs before the public, unmediated by the hostile press, the British people will flock to his banner. He thinks it'll be like his leadership campaign, with halls full of adoring supporters carrying him to overwhelming victory.
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think the take away from this for opposition parties in the future, is this - especially if the Tories win big - don't vote in line with a Government when they try to do this. It is totally cynical and opportunistic and Governments will only do it when they are really confident they will win.
quote:and at least one EU official has come out and explicitly said this:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They won't. The "strong negotiating position" talk of the Tories is smoke and mirrors, part of the political game ... it's not something of relevance to the EU side of the negotiations.
quote:Until charges are brought at the same scale against other parties this dwells in the realm of the tu quoque. The specifics of the allegations involve central party organisations, so it's possible that this was systemic in a way that doesn't apply to the other parties (who may well have overspent on particular races).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
While we're drawing inferences, the lack of comment on this subject from Labour and the Liberal Democrats
quote:The official thinking on the Tory side is that if they have lots of MPs then they'll be able to ram through even a bad deal without parliamentary opposition. So the EU won't be tempted to offer a bad deal in order to have parliament refuse Brexit altogether. On the other hand: a) parliament has so far refused to grant itself any power to scrutinise the final deal; b) this sort of attitude towards your negotiating partners - that they've going to negotiate in bad faith - is likely to sour negotiations before they've started.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to figure out why the other side of the Brexit negotiations will care if the side who is negotiating with them has more MP's.
quote:Do you really think this is true? I mean, the bit about Corbyn relishing the campaign. You may be right, but I wonder if there is an icy splinter of panic in him as well, in the face of impending Gotterdammerung, sorry about the missing umlauts.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I agree - but in this case we have an opposition leader who was desperate for an election for his own reasons. He is absolutely convinced that as soon as he gets out on the campaign trail and puts his socialist beliefs before the public, unmediated by the hostile press, the British people will flock to his banner. He thinks it'll be like his leadership campaign, with halls full of adoring supporters carrying him to overwhelming victory.
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think the take away from this for opposition parties in the future, is this - especially if the Tories win big - don't vote in line with a Government when they try to do this. It is totally cynical and opportunistic and Governments will only do it when they are really confident they will win.
He also needs to do this before the Labour party implodes or he loses his grip on what's left of it, so the timing of this election actually suits him very well.
quote:I certainly think that Corbyn enjoys campaigning more than any other part of his job, and he must have an unshakeable belief in full-blooded socialism to have carried a torch for it throughout the Thatcher/Blair years. I don't think he's panicked so much as exasperated that people don't get it; as I've said before, if he doesn't succeed this time he will try again next time around, or arrange for an anointed successor to do so. He won't let a little thing like a landslide defeat deflect him from his purpose.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you really think this is true? I mean, the bit about Corbyn relishing the campaign. You may be right, but I wonder if there is an icy splinter of panic in him as well, in the face of impending Gotterdammerung, sorry about the missing umlauts.
quote:I completely agree actually, but as a politics junkie I've perhaps seen far more in the past few days of people screaming all over the internet at the other parties "why aren't you running with this?" to have mentally priced in all the things you're saying already.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Until charges are brought at the same scale against other parties this dwells in the realm of the tu quoque.
quote:And, she may be right.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The real reason is almost certainly that she thinks she can wipe out Labour.
quote:He also loves the adulation. He hasn't had much experience of it in the past. Everybody likes to feel loved and it feeds his Lenin leading the people fantasy.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I certainly think that Corbyn enjoys campaigning more than any other part of his job, and he must have an unshakeable belief in full-blooded socialism to have carried a torch for it throughout the Thatcher/Blair years. I don't think he's panicked so much as exasperated that people don't get it; as I've said before, if he doesn't succeed this time he will try again next time around, or arrange for an anointed successor to do so. He won't let a little thing like a landslide defeat deflect him from his purpose.
It's kind of admirable in "c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre" sort of way. I really want to warm to Corbyn, as many of his policies are not a million miles away from my own beliefs, but for whatever reason I just can't. My take on him, never having met him, is that has been an outsider for so long he has major trust issues.
I'll almost certainly vote Labour anyway, I usually do, but as an unrepentant remoaner I am attracted to the LibDems this time around. As I live in a Lab/Lib marginal this decision may actually matter a little tiny bit.
quote:Fair assessment. I would like to meet him, he is probably quite a decent guy. I live in a Tory safe seat, so my vote is utterly meaningless, despite Gina Miller's exhortations.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I certainly think that Corbyn enjoys campaigning more than any other part of his job, and he must have an unshakeable belief in full-blooded socialism to have carried a torch for it throughout the Thatcher/Blair years. I don't think he's panicked so much as exasperated that people don't get it; as I've said before, if he doesn't succeed this time he will try again next time around, or arrange for an anointed successor to do so. He won't let a little thing like a landslide defeat deflect him from his purpose.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you really think this is true? I mean, the bit about Corbyn relishing the campaign. You may be right, but I wonder if there is an icy splinter of panic in him as well, in the face of impending Gotterdammerung, sorry about the missing umlauts.
It's kind of admirable in "c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre" sort of way. I really want to warm to Corbyn, as many of his policies are not a million miles away from my own beliefs, but for whatever reason I just can't. My take on him, never having met him, is that has been an outsider for so long he has major trust issues.
I'll almost certainly vote Labour anyway, I usually do, but as an unrepentant remoaner I am attracted to the LibDems this time around. As I live in a Lab/Lib marginal this decision may actually matter a little tiny bit.
quote:I can think of other reasons - apart from a scenario where everyone is to blame - for why the other parties aren't making a huge noise about it. Legally commenting on ongoing investigations is unlikely to be wise, and likely to derail anything already in motion. Additionally, if it is likely that Thanet South represented the worst of the overspend - then all parties have a common interest in minimizing the profile of Farage and/or avoiding making the Brexit referendum itself the sole campaigning issue.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I completely agree actually, but as a politics junkie I've perhaps seen far more in the past few days of people screaming all over the internet at the other parties "why aren't you running with this?" to have mentally priced in all the things you're saying already.
quote:And while Labour flirts with the extreme left, the Tories will have as a minimum an extra 5 years to undo the remaining great reforms brought in by Attlee and reinforced by Wilson. That's the tragedy which Momentum is forcing onto the UK.
Originally posted by Cod:
These things are cyclical. Labour went to all this in the nineteen eighties. Unfortunately there is probably plenty of pain for them ahead if history is going to repeat itself.
quote:
Well, I did enjoy May's slip of the tongue: we want to become global leaders in stopping tourism.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:What lack of policy? Corbyn has plenty of policies.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:A slight correction: its lack of policy and Corbyn's lack of ability to lead the party.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Its lack of policy in this direction will, I believe, cost it dearly in the election.
), and I can't find many of the above policies I would disagree with. But - why do people assume Labour are unelectable? Surely no one has any faith in polls after the Yanks elected Lord Voldemort, contrary to nearly all indicators?
quote:So where's Labour going to find the next John Smith?
Originally posted by Cod:
These things are cyclical. Labour went to all this in the nineteen eighties. Unfortunately there is probably plenty of pain for them ahead if history is going to repeat itself.
quote:350 million/week, Trident, doubling election costs (ok not a promise).
Originally posted by L'organist:
...the electorate isn't quite as gullible as it once was and can spot uncosted promises a mile away.
quote:The received wisdom is that swing voters don't decide on policies. Rather the wisdom is that they decide on the perceived competence of the leader and on the perceived economic competence of the party.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
What lack of policy? Corbyn has plenty of policies.
quote:A crash caused by a global financial crisis caused by financial de-regulation in the US of the sort that would have been pushed here had the Tories won in 2005.
Originally posted by L'organist:
he has to deal with an electorate who, always suspicious of Labour over the economy, trusted it with Blair and then saw the crash of 2008; and
quote:Not a fan of PFI, but again the Tories have continued to push this policy during their time in office. The current cost crunch is due to funding not keeping pace with an aging population (and the soaring cost of wages due to the need to employ short term staff).
those people are the school governors grappling with PFI payments and people looking at glitzy PFI hospitals which has to choose between making PFI payments or keeping wards open.
quote:'Uncosted promises' are one of those irregular verbs - how much will the Trident replacement (with it's inevitable overruns) cost over and above that allocated to defence ?
But the biggest problem is that Corbyn and his team are still promising the earth as if there was a money tree hidden away in Westminster: the electorate isn't quite as gullible as it once was and can spot uncosted promises a mile away.
quote:Absolutely, at that point it was orthodoxy of sorts but the idea that there was the choice of another party pushing for more regulation would be inaccurate - quite the opposite. Here are some quotes from that Tory report (published in 2007):
Originally posted by Cod:
My recollection is that the Blair government was proud of the lack of regulation of the City.
Right up to 2008, when they'd been in power for nine years.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I believe Northern Rock and RBS had a few issues.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.
quote:Yes, they do have to own it. So do the Tories, who at the time were pressing for even less regulation.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.
quote:1997-2007 if I remember correctly.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The amazing thing that nobody much talks about these days is that Brown's "prudence" and "no more boom and bust" actually worked for a while.
quote:The one credible MP who really had his eye on the ball back in 2007 was Vince Cable of the LibDems. He foresaw the problems and would have made a far better job of Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2010-2015 coalition than George Osborne did. Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.
He seemed like a cantankerous old fart, but his economic policies actually seemed to work.
quote:Not in New Zealand, which is the "this country" to which I think Cod refers.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I believe Northern Rock and RBS had a few issues.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.
quote:That's one way of looking at it - another might be that very few majority coalition partners in the world countenance handing over control of the purse strings to the juniors.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.
quote:Sorry, insufficient coffee. However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere. The leak at the front of the Titanic soon became everyone's problem.
Originally posted by Kittyville:
quote:Not in New Zealand, which is the "this country" to which I think Cod refers.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I believe Northern Rock and RBS had a few issues.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
Banks in this country didn't have anything like the same problems because local regulations prevented them from investing in mortgage-backed ninja loans like those that caused so much trouble in NY and London.
quote:Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if something bad happens during a Tory government it's the Tories' fault for doing it, and if something bad happens during a Labour government it's the Tories' fault for not arguing against it.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
quote:Even if it isn't in the national interest? The Tories have a long and dishonourable history of putting the party before the country, from Macmillan's "Night of the long knives", through the manner in which Margaret Thatcher was ditched to the EU Referendum.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:That's one way of looking at it - another might be that very few majority coalition partners in the world countenance handing over control of the purse strings to the juniors.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.
There are exceptions but the point stands I think - power and money are hand in hand, you don't want to give one of them away if you're calling the shots.
quote:The nations that weathered the 2008 financial crisis best were generally those with both strong domestic regulations and limited international financial investment. In the UK, Northern Rock was largely the result of poor investments by the bank in the UK, a lot of risky lending - tighter regulation might have limited things there, but if it was just Northern Rock it wouldn't have been a problem, just another company having problems, if not for the larger global problems they'd have likely been bought out by a larger bank with restructuring and branch closures but ultimately little impact beyond that to staff and some of their customers. On the other hand, the problems with RBS were driven largely by their substantial operations in the US, and elsewhere, and no amount of UK regulation would have made any difference then. The UK is a major international financial player, the big UK banks all have far greater investments and interests overseas than in the UK - that provides strength in face of domestic UK issues, but added risk when things go down hill internationally.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere.
quote:I've got sympathy for governments of all shades. So much real power now resides in corporations and markets that democratically elected governments don't have much say. They are in hock to business interests.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if something bad happens during a Tory government it's the Tories' fault for doing it, and if something bad happens during a Labour government it's the Tories' fault for not arguing against it.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
quote:This current government's schtick seems to be to blame Labour for everything, even though the Tories have been majority-government for almost a decade.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Don't be silly. Everyone knows that if something bad happens during a Tory government it's the Tories' fault for doing it, and if something bad happens during a Labour government it's the Tories' fault for not arguing against it.
Originally posted by Cod:
It happened on Labour's watch. They have to own it.
quote:And if you've managed to confuse Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland? A fairly basic mistake which makes me wonder about the robustness of rest of your analysis.
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Can I just clarify if you think Labour forced the merger of Halifax and Bank of Scotland in 2001? Or if you mistakenly believe it didn't happen until 2008?
quote:Again, regardless of party, if you've just become the largest party in a parliament then it takes massive self-doubt, or indeed self-belief, to de-couple that result from the economic prospectus you were standing on and say "you know what, even though everything we've said and proposed hangs on the national finances, we're going to give away stewardship of the same to the party that came third/fourth/whatever."
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Even if it isn't in the national interest?
quote:And RBS' acquisition of ABN AMRO. The £20bn of the £28bn loss they announced in January 2009 was due to the ABN AMRO acquisition.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:.. On the other hand, the problems with RBS were driven largely by their substantial operations in the US, and elsewhere, and no amount of UK regulation would have made any difference then. The UK is a major international financial player, the big UK banks all have far greater investments and interests overseas than in the UK - that provides strength in face of domestic UK issues, but added risk when things go down hill internationally.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere.
quote:Quite - RBS just got greedy. About the only thing that emerges from RBS with much credit is NatWest, which was famously dull, boring and sound when they bought it, and largely continues to be dull, boring and sound as it trundles along through the chaos engulfing the group around it.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:And RBS' acquisition of ABN AMRO. The £20bn of the £28bn loss they announced in January 2009 was due to the ABN AMRO acquisition.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:.. On the other hand, the problems with RBS were driven largely by their substantial operations in the US, and elsewhere, and no amount of UK regulation would have made any difference then. The UK is a major international financial player, the big UK banks all have far greater investments and interests overseas than in the UK - that provides strength in face of domestic UK issues, but added risk when things go down hill internationally.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However I think one of the lessons of 2008 is that problems in one part of the system rapidly spread everywhere.
Tubbs
quote:sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, RBS or HBOS?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
RBOS
quote:thanks - RBS then (the O isn't used as it gets confused with what was HBOS). Incidentally, you've unwittingly put your finger on the problem with RBS there by leaving out an option for what actually happened!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It was the One Account, which was originally a product from the Royal Bank of Scotland I think. I can't remember at what point it was taken over or merged with Natwest
quote:Here's what the Economist has to say about it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually I think the problems with the banks were largely due to unsustainable mortgage lending, which was itself caused by prudent economic management by Brown (so the true risks of lending to self-employed people who signed off their own books wasn't considered) and a massively overheating housing market.
quote:He is standing for election once again in Twickenham. He was a very popular local MP, and I expect he will regain the seat.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
]The one credible MP who really had his eye on the ball back in 2007 was Vince Cable of the LibDems. He foresaw the problems and would have made a far better job of Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 2010-2015 coalition than George Osborne did. Unfortunately the Tory backbenchers were too selfish to accept that.
quote:As it says in your linked article, the bankers had lost track of the risky debt by packaging it up with high quality loans. Neither the buyers nor sellers of CDO's had much idea of which actual mortgages were backing them. The managers of the banks had little knowledge or understanding of what their traders were doing.
Originally posted by Cod:
Here's what the Economist has to say about it.
Yes, the problem was unsustainable lending - but in the US. This wouldn't have been a problem if banks hadn't invested in the securities createdon the basis of that lending. I note that the article points the finger not only at American banks but European ones as well.
quote:Which government did what? It was the independent Bank of England that failed to regulate the banks correctly. Brown made the BoE independent on day 1 of his Chancellorship (more or less) to de-politicise monetary policy, a point of vulnerability for previous Labour governments. It would also give him deniability for cock-ups like 2008, of course; somewhat prescient that one.
Originally posted by Cod:
Furthermore, central banks were asleep at the wheel. There is even specific mention of how the BoE (the most important central bank) lost oversight of financial regulation. We should all remember which government did that.
quote:Like all counterfactuals, this may or not be true and has little value unless you subscribe to multiverse theory. I'm afraid it may be just old-school "you can trust the Tories with money" bollocks, a myth that was exploded once and for all on16th September 1992.
Originally posted by Cod:
I've not much liking for the Tories. However, the fact remains that we can only guess at how they would have managed the City had they been in power after 1997. They were responsible for the Big Bang, which began London's huge expansion. We also know that they are generally keen on the free flow of money and the development of high finance. However, we also know that a good many of their ranks come from that background, and would have had a good idea what needed to be done in terms of governance.
quote:This is often brought up, and the example that the Tories usually trot out is John Redwood (because for a time he was employed both as an MP and in a financial house). Now guess who wrote this in 2007:
Originally posted by Cod:
However, we also know that a good many of their ranks come from that background, and would have had a good idea what needed to be done in terms of governance.
quote:I'm not pretending to be a economist, but my understanding of the problems with Northern Rock were to a large degree due to bad mortage lending in the UK. But I'm sure the subprime mortgages in the USA were a significant part of the problem too.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, the problem was unsustainable lending - but in the US. This wouldn't have been a problem if banks hadn't invested in the securities createdon the basis of that lending. I note that the article points the finger not only at American banks but European ones as well.
quote:Northern Rock had a business model where they borrowed on the overnight markets (at low rates) to lend for 30 years (and then securitised those mortgages and sold them on). Short term inter-bank loans dried up, and everyone tried to get out of mortgage securities at once (people sold other securities to cover the losses in their US portfolios). The combination of both these things killed their business model (which was criminally over optimistic to start with).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not pretending to be a economist, but my understanding of the problems with Northern Rock were to a large degree due to bad mortage lending in the UK.
quote:Here's what an actual economist* thinks...
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:Here's what the Economist has to say about it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually I think the problems with the banks were largely due to unsustainable mortgage lending, which was itself caused by prudent economic management by Brown (so the true risks of lending to self-employed people who signed off their own books wasn't considered) and a massively overheating housing market.
quote:Off the top of my head: implementation of the Basel III Accords, ring-fencing (to be completed by January 2019), and forcing mortgage lenders to take lifestyle factors into account.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Besides, there's another test. Exactly what have the Tories done since then to reduce the chances of another crisis? They quietly shelved an FCA inquiry and largely ignored the findings of the commission on banking regulation.
quote:Of course, Labour policy and what Corbyn says when speaking to the media can often be two completely different things...
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Even if I didn't agree with Corbyn*** on policy
...
recent research showed that newspapers only report Labour policies accurately 19% of the time
quote:Something called Basel III was going to be implemented anyway - the only bun-fight was over what was going to be inside it (the capital ratios mandated by Basel III are marginally under that of Lehman before it's collapse). The 'lifestyle-factors' tinkers at the very margins - most of the unwise lending would have happened regardless. Ring fencing doesn't deal with opacity or leverage which were the two big problems during the financial crisis, it gives an illusion of safety at best.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Off the top of my head: implementation of the Basel III Accords, ring-fencing (to be completed by January 2019), and forcing mortgage lenders to take lifestyle factors into account.
quote:Or the former tory trade minister (in the BBC article you mention).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
but that did not prevent Mr Corbyn repeating in his big speech that Britain was the sixth largest.
quote:I'm not sure ring fencing things into 'bad' and 'good' components really helps - risk can still build up, and of course last time the immediate cause of the crisis was the failure of two banks which were effectively ring fenced (Bear and Lehmans).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Not sure (genuinely) about ring-fencing. ISTM that in a well-functioning market the regulator should not be in a better position than the bank or its auditors to judge risks to the bank's own balance sheet, and the reason this did not happen in the past is that the lack of ring-fencing, and the silly bonus structures, gave the banks and their employees perverse incentives not to care.
quote:Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd, Liam Fox, David Davis, and Jeremy 'rhyming slang' Hunt all get a free pass.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
(20 years ago, we had a Labour government elected with a massive landslide. Now we have people like Ms Abbott at the very top of the party. Well done, Jeremy!)
quote:I'd rather someone who couldn't remember the numbers at an interview whose underlying policy actually worked than vice versa.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott reveals a mastery of numbers almost as strong as Donald Trump's.
quote:Is it true she'd got the numbers right at a few interviews immediately before. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'd rather someone who couldn't remember the numbers at an interview whose underlying policy actually worked than vice versa.
That said, Abbott's an experienced politician. She should have made sure she could reel out the right numbers backwards.
quote:Rule #1: Don't make shit up. She may well have forgotten the numbers, and also forgotten to bring any notes with her in case she did forget the numbers. In which case, say that you concluded that the numbers were very affordable, apologize for not having the figures to hand, promise to follow up with the correct figures after the interview, and then do so.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism. But she did nothing wrong in fluffing a few numbers.
quote:I don't think she did actually. I think what happened was that she experienced some stress earlier in the interview when the interviewer stopped her mid sentence (when he pointed out - pedantically - that the policy was to increase the number of both policemen and women) and this was enough to knock her off.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
She made those numbers up. She lied.
quote:What's there to despise? It's mostly about making sure people aren't shafted so much.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism.
quote:Plenty of people are content to see the poor and the disabled shafted, as long as they keep their 4x4s and their holiday in Tuscany, or whatever their equivalent is. Keep taxes low, and squeeze the poor - it's a winner.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:What's there to despise? It's mostly about making sure people aren't shafted so much.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism.
quote:I'm not sure about young people, but there is some evidence in recent polling that the Don't Knows are breaking for Labour rather than LibDem.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm strangely hopeful of a surprise in this election. Maybe many more young people will vote this time?
quote:Which I'm not convinced will hold this time around. For a start, with 56 seats and 50% vote share in 2015 there's almost now way to go up. And, they're going to be hit by the "not another referendum now" factor - though whether they will go Tory (who are also suffering from the "not another election" factor) or Lab and LibDem who knows? The Tories in Scotland are riding a wave at the moment, with a succesful election in 2016 - on the other hand they are working from a low point, and I don't think Mrs May turning up to a hut in the woods creates an impression that Scotland is all that important. There is a concerted campaign to oust our Tory MP this time round, hopefully that will succeed and there won't be any other Tories sneaking in elsewhere. The LibDem seat in the northern isles is very weak (the scandal of the 2015 campaign is still very fresh), but they may recover lost seats elsewhere. And, Labour could pull back a bit of lost ground.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The SNP lock on Scotland
quote:Perhaps - but then, I do tend to be a bit extreme about accuracy, because it matters. You can imagine I'm having rather a hard time with the current US administration.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But to say that she's lying.. well, that's a bit extreme.
quote:The small but telling problem with the Corbyn/ McDonnell/ Abbot approach is that it tends not to win elections. You can't do a huge amount to stop people being shafted if you end up with the sort of representation in Parliament that puts you somewhere between Michael Foot and George Lansbury.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:What's there to despise? It's mostly about making sure people aren't shafted so much.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I despise Diane Abbott and her leader's brand of socialism.
quote:Many young people did not vote in the Referendum for one reason or another. They may be motivated to come out and try and reverse what the oldies have done to their future.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm strangely hopeful of a surprise in this election. Maybe many more young people will vote this time?
quote:I think you mean the Financial Times, and unless I've not been watching, the two institutions are separate.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The E.U Commission are doing their bit by coming out with the 'Woe unto you Blighty' and threats of a 100 billion divorce bill.
quote:She got flustered and couldn't find the right numbers. OK. Obviously it's a bad thing for an experienced politician to get flustered by a radio interview, but it's not a culpable error.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But saying that she's lying goes beyond her being so flustered that she can't focus on the numbers on her bit of paper and into the whole realms of fakery. She wasn't trying to fake anything, she just had a meltdown.
quote:Some politicians can put an end to tourism and get away with it.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
She got flustered and couldn't find the right numbers. OK. Obviously it's a bad thing for an experienced politician to get flustered by a radio interview, but it's not a culpable error.
quote:I'm not sure I'd disagree with that, actually. Keir Starmer is one of the very few heavyweight front-line politicians that Labour have.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd rather have Kier Starmer sitting across from Junker than a combination of Johnson and Davis.
quote:That's the thing. I completely get that Abbott, Corbyn, McDonnell and the rest have a genuine passion for helping the disadvantaged in our society. But by positioning Labour some distance from the centre of British political opinion, and heavily seasoning with incompetence, they make the party unelectable.
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd, Liam Fox, David Davis, and Jeremy 'rhyming slang' Hunt all get a free pass
quote:I'm struggling to see that Labour have moved. I know the press, and LibDems and the Tories, are all telling me that's the case, very loudly and very often, but the actual policies they're promoting? Not so much.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
But by positioning Labour some distance from the centre of British political opinion, and heavily seasoning with incompetence, they make the party unelectable.
quote:I'd agree. It's not just the usual suspects though; it's also the Labour leadership who are trying to put clear blue water between themselves and Blair. Even if they're not that far from Blair.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm struggling to see that Labour have moved. I know the press, and LibDems and the Tories, are all telling me that's the case, very loudly and very often, but the actual policies they're promoting? Not so much.
quote:The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'd agree. It's not just the usual suspects though; it's also the Labour leadership who are trying to put clear blue water between themselves and Blair. Even if they're not that far from Blair.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm struggling to see that Labour have moved. I know the press, and LibDems and the Tories, are all telling me that's the case, very loudly and very often, but the actual policies they're promoting? Not so much.
quote:Exactly. One mistake is laughed off, the other is scrutinised beyond belief.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Some politicians can put an end to tourism and get away with it.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
She got flustered and couldn't find the right numbers. OK. Obviously it's a bad thing for an experienced politician to get flustered by a radio interview, but it's not a culpable error.
quote:Leave it, can't you? She's a black woman who messed up publicly. No harm was done and the numbers were almost instantly corrected.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Any statement other than "I'm sorry, I can't find the exact figures right now, but the consequences were..." is a lie.
A lie caused by stupidity is less immoral than a lie caused by maliciousness, but it has the same effect.
quote:Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
quote:John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
quote:Oh, you mean John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, speaking at a public meeting which other members of the public also get to attend.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
quote:And? So what?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
quote:Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And? So what?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:John McDonnell, the man who'd like to be Chancellor, standing beneath a hammer and sickle flag.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Sorry, I'm obviously missing something here. You're going to have to explain this to me.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The optics are a long, long way from Blair.
quote:Riiight. Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.
quote:This isn't the first time that Corbyn or McDonnell have turned up to events where people have paraded extremist banners.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Riiight. Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.
quote:Maybe not, but you can certainly control them once they're there.
Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
quote:Are you saying locking journalists in a room was a good thing?
Originally posted by Jane R:
mr cheesy:quote:Maybe not, but you can certainly control them once they're there.
Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
quote:They're going to renationalise the railways?!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I suppose we can be thankful that the Labour manifesto isn't copied from the Communist Party, unlike large parts of the Conservative manifesto lifted from the BNP.
quote:No, the exact opposite. Perhaps I should have added an emoticon to make my meaning clearer.
Are you saying locking journalists in a room was a good thing?
quote:Do you know the date of the photo?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.
quote:Where does inviting a leader of a death squad to tea rank on your list of priorities?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This isn't the first time that Corbyn or McDonnell have turned up to events where people have paraded extremist banners.
quote:That is not a good look.
Originally posted by Jane R:
mr cheesy:quote:Maybe not, but you can certainly control them once they're there.
Because every politician always is able to vet other people who turn up to public events. Oh wait.
quote:1 May 2017
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:Do you know the date of the photo?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, personally, I'd say that if one wants to present oneself as a potential senior cabinet minister who can reach out to and win the support of moderate voters, then going to an event where people parade symbols associated with tyranny, represssion and mass murder is a bit of a bad idea. But each to their own, I guess.
quote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-4xuGuXsAAAmZF.jpg
Originally posted by Jane R:
You can do wonders with Photoshop these days.
quote:This is quite possibly the most ridiculous attempt to play the sex and race cards I have ever seen. LC has not even so much as hinted at the suggestion that either her sex or her race is relevant to the story, nor is there any reason to suppose that LC would treat differently any other politician who gave such a train wreck of an interview featuring such obviously incorrect claims.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
She's a black woman who messed up publicly.
...
But y'know, if you want to continue looking like a racist misogynist, keep spouting this line about it being lies
quote:Yes, I thought it was a reach, but then I thought LC's claim that she lied was also a reach (especially as she gave the correct information earlier in the week). It seemed to be a classic case of interviewee freeze, which doesn't remove media bias of course.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
LC has not even so much as hinted at the suggestion that either her sex or her race is relevant to the story
quote:Bullshit. If it was May who fluffed a tv interview or Boris who made some claims which had to be corrected, it'd blow over very quickly.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous attempt to play the sex and race cards I have ever seen. LC has not even so much as hinted at the suggestion that either her sex or her race is relevant to the story, nor is there any reason to suppose that LC would treat differently any other politician who gave such a train wreck of an interview featuring such obviously incorrect claims.
quote:Or is May purely cynical, or did she really believe the 'haz cat can't be deported' story.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on. White Eton-educated man is permanently making mistakes, then somehow that's just part of his personality.
quote:I'm not convinced. From years of watching the BBC "This Week", on which she was a regular commentator, I've long held the view that Abbott is - shall we say? - not the most able of politicians, and that the media wish to bring that out. Is it sexist or racist? I don't think so. Is it personal? Yes, it probably is.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on.
quote:Does anyone doubt that if Jeremy Corbyn had given the same interview as Diane Abbot he would have received the same media response, or even even a more scathing and widely published one? I certainly don't.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bullshit. If it was May who fluffed a tv interview or Boris who made some claims which had to be corrected, it'd blow over very quickly.
quote:Think whatever you like. Meanwhile keep turning the wheel that says this minor event is somehow showing something about the Labour party.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Does anyone doubt that if Jeremy Corbyn had given the same interview as Diane Abbot he would have received the same media response, or even even a more scathing and widely published one? I certainly don't.
You can say the media is biased against Abbot because she's a Labour MP if you want, and I won't deny it. But saying it's due to sex or race won't cut it.
quote:The opposition generally fares better in local elections, held shortly before a General Election, than it does in the General Election. So if that pattern holds true Mrs May will have the sort of majority that makes Mrs Thatcher and Mr Blair look like footling amateurs.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I suppose they must count for something but in the local elections, for which turnout is a bit less than half that in a general election, the Tories have made big gains, partly at the expense of Labour but they appear to have wiped out UKIP, which has so far retained exactly none of the seats it previously held (0/64 and counting).
quote:Yes but you seem to be oblivious to what is needed to restore proper democratic balance to British politics. The first thing is that Labour needs to ditch the dick at the top and all his foul entourage. Especially the likes of McDonnell. Next it needs to vote in an electable leader. Not another bell end like Owen Smith, but someone like Chuka Umunna, Sir Keir Starmer or Yvette Cooper. The new leader needs to expel Momentum like Neil Kninnock did with Militant Tendency in the 1980's. Labour may be the largest political party in Western Europe with 600,000 members, but while it can get the endorsement of the Communist Party, it can't of the British electorate at large.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I despair of this country. People are literally voting in a party who is going to take things away from the masses.
quote:There is no yes but. You're either a thieving Tory, a deluded part of the 75% who will benefit nothing at all from a Tory government or some other kind of lame-arsed idiot who is into voting against his own interests.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but
quote:Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
There is no yes but. You're either a thieving Tory, a deluded part of the 75% who will benefit nothing at all from a Tory government or some other kind of lame-arsed idiot who is into voting against his own interests.
quote:Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.
quote:We don'y have a Le Pen here. Neither do we have a Macron, who is a centre left politician of the type Labour should be putting up.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen
quote:The Tories are turning into Republicans. UKIP is still further down the same road.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you don't think the Tories are turning into UKIP and on a journey to Le Pen then you're even more deluded than I thought.
quote:At this point Corbyn isn't going to win anyway, and there is a large amount of value in not giving May too much of a majority.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.
quote:You have the whole thing in a nutshell.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Also, after five more years of "fuck the poor" policies, many people will realise that they really are better off under a moderate Labour government than a right-wing Tory one - this lesson has to be re-learned every 20 years or so. Whether Labour will be there for them when they come to this realisation is another matter.
quote:Good analysis. May has undoubtedly hit the sweet spot this time, bringing together former Lib Dem voters and UKIP voters, and Labour voters. I suppose Brexit has been part of this, and again, May has been clever getting the election in, before any Brexit shit-hits-the-fan.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories absorbed the right-leaning Lib Dem voters in 2015, and now they've managed to absorb the UKIP voters as well. This coalition is inherently very unstable; sometime during the next five years May will have to say or do something to piss off one or both of these groups.
Also, after five more years of "fuck the poor" policies, many people will realise that they really are better off under a moderate Labour government than a right-wing Tory one - this lesson has to be re-learned every 20 years or so. Whether Labour will be there for them when they come to this realisation is another matter.
quote:Thank you (I think...?)
Originally posted by Martin60:
Anglican't, keep up the good work, you are giving value for money better than the Spectator and Private Eye combined.
quote:Yes, the Left should only be allowed a leader that the Right have approved.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:We don'y have a Le Pen here. Neither do we have a Macron, who is a centre left politician of the type Labour should be putting up.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen
quote:Or you could argue that Blair and Brown went down the path of neo-liberalism, and this led to stuff like PFI and privatization. Of course, part of Labour reacted to this, calling it Tory-lite.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The trouble on the left started brewing during the Blair years; many working-class Labour voters wanted most of all to get back to the days of "proper jobs" in proper, manufacturing industry. Blair and Brown bought them off with tax credits and extra money for schools & hospitals, but in practice promoted a low-skill, low-wage service economy that acted as a magnet for immigration. The result is that unscrupulous right-wing politicians have been able to get these peoples' votes by promising hard Brexit and immigration controls, as if the immigrants were the cause of low wages rather than vice-versa.
It's all nonsense, of course; we can't stop immigration or our economy and public services will collapse, but that's a problem for the next election. It will do just fine as a strategy for this one.
quote:It seems very strong in England, but I suppose also in the US. The irony is that conservative politics (as in Tory and Labour), don't actually conserve at all; they tend to smash everything up. But then there is the fantasy that you can escape via protectionism. This often leads to trade war and real war.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The world has never actually worked in the way it does in the Ye Olde Days fantasies. Even if it had, it couldn't now. The problem is that people think it did, so politicians gain a lot of traction pretending they want to go back.
quote:Rather Corbyn than May. I haven't seen a scrap of evidence that May is more competent than Corbyn. This is the woman who appointed Boris '350 million for the NHS' Johnson to Foreign Secretary.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nothing is worth risking putting Corbyn in Downing Street.
quote:No quite, but surely they should put up a candidate who has some hope of getting elected!
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, the Left should only be allowed a leader that the Right have approved.
quote:If you think Macron is any form of left you must be so far to the right you can't be seen with a telescope.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:We don'y have a Le Pen here. Neither do we have a Macron, who is a centre left politician of the type Labour should be putting up.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, that's the spirit! This kind of reasoning will elect Le Pen
quote:So why is he the political child of failed President Hollande?
Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
If you think Macron is any form of left you must be so far to the right you can't be seen with a telescope.
quote:And Diane Abbott's done another interview:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:I'm not convinced. From years of watching the BBC "This Week", on which she was a regular commentator, I've long held the view that Abbott is - shall we say? - not the most able of politicians, and that the media wish to bring that out. Is it sexist or racist? I don't think so. Is it personal? Yes, it probably is.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't a "card", it's the truth. Black woman makes a mistake and everyone piles on.
quote:That's a "when did you stop beating your wife" question if ever I saw one.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:So why is he the political child of failed President Hollande?
Originally posted by arethosemyfeet:
If you think Macron is any form of left you must be so far to the right you can't be seen with a telescope.
quote:The adage that the right looks for converts the left looks for traitors is hardly a truth universally acknowledged but in this particular instance it seems bang on.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:There is no yes but. You're either a thieving Tory, a deluded part of the 75% who will benefit nothing at all from a Tory government or some other kind of lame-arsed idiot who is into voting against his own interests.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but
Which is it?
quote:Yeah, the left (my preferred side, in politics) face a massive defeat in this election and Diane Abbott isn't helping.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And Diane Abbott's done another interview:
quote:What about my hope that a significant portion of he electorate will become rational?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.
quote:That's just barmy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What about my hope that a significant portion of he electorate will become rational?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.
quote:qv 23rd June 2016.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That's just barmy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:What about my hope that a significant portion of he electorate will become rational?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Politics isn't rational like that. It's often based on hope, wish-fulfilment, fantasy, image.
quote:Presumably, people who vote Tory at a local level favour lower levels of Council Tax which doesn't preclude them whinging about the poorer services which follow from that. That said, I once moved from a Council with a left wing authority, with strong views on the environment, where the recycling services were rubbish to a safe Tory seat where they were pretty good. It didn't induce me to vote Tory but I could see why my neighbours did.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!
quote:So the problem with this kind of statement is that it treats "services" as a monolithic block. You either want lots of "services" in which case you want high taxes to pay for them, or you want a lower level of "service" and lower taxes.
Originally posted by Callan:
Presumably, people who vote Tory at a local level favour lower levels of Council Tax which doesn't preclude them whinging about the poorer services which follow from that.
quote:Well, we've had cuts to all those things in Liverpool, which is not far from being a Labour one-party state at the moment. And that's not because Labour are rubbish, but because Liverpool lost something like 50% of its central government funding.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!
quote:I think some of it is hoping that they'll be 'rewarded for their loyalty' by central government. A kind of Quisling, or prisoners dilemma approach.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Given the number of people who have just voted for Tory councillors/mayors, it's not credible that a substantial number of them also complain about lack of bin collection, pot holes in the road, and umpteen other local services below par. Which makes you wonder why they vote for local politicians who are likely to continue cutting those services. And, come June are also likely to vote for MPs who will do the same to nationally funded services. Turkeys, here's Christmas. Vote now!
quote:And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.
quote:Most everyone hates and fears what they do not understand, Tories do not have a monopoly on that.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.
quote:IME a lot of these type of people are prone to underestimating the complexity of delivering services, and overestimating the cost of services that they don't personally benefit from.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator".
quote:I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think anybody thinks like that. A lot of the traditionally Tory voters that I know are very keen on regular rubbish collections and road repairs, but not keen on anybody who has a job title that includes words like "outreach coordinator" or "facilitator". It's not that they want lower services across the board - it's that there are some things they want, and other things they don't want at all.
quote:I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
quote:"Fear", "hate", and "don't want to purchase" are not synonyms.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And like good little tories they fear and hate anything they don't understand.
quote:And that's why you lose...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
quote:Quite. It's kind of difficult to win elections if one doesn't pander to the electorate at least a bit.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:And that's why you lose...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
quote:More particularly it's why I'm not a politician.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And that's why you lose...
quote:Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:Quite. It's kind of difficult to win elections if one doesn't pander to the electorate at least a bit.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:And that's why you lose...
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
quote:Thing is, the tories clearly know their target audience is prone to stupidity, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to push this sort of absurd nonsense:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.
quote:If it is, as you say, 'absurd nonsense', why do you think details of the meeting (which portrayed Mrs May negatively) were leaked by the Commission?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Thing is, the tories clearly know their target audience is prone to stupidity, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to push this sort of absurd nonsense:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/07/tories-intensify-attacks-brussels-saying-supports-labour
quote:On one hand, yes. You're absolutely right. The Left need to up their game and tell a better story - seek converts.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.
quote:Because the meeting occurred in the time frame within which it was leaked and they have an interest in keeping their own electorate abreast of developments that are likely to affect their domestic economy. Things aren't always primarily about the UK.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it is, as you say, 'absurd nonsense', why do you think details of the meeting (which portrayed Mrs May negatively) were leaked by the Commission?
quote:Monetarism is simple and intuitive?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones.
quote:Although ISTM the sort of people who don't like immigrants don't like bankers much either.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:On one hand, yes. You're absolutely right. The Left need to up their game and tell a better story - seek converts.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Or calling them wicked, stupid and moronic. I think that's a bit of a turn off.
One the other, it's extraordinarily difficult to reason with people out of a position like the the Banker's Biscuit without first telling them they've fallen for a scam. No one likes being told they're stupid (or racist).
quote:And yet they absolutely adore stock brokers so long as they share their views.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Although ISTM the sort of people who don't like immigrants don't like bankers much either.
quote:Which is exactly the point. Classic misdirection: "Hate them, not us - they're the problem."
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Although ISTM the sort of people who don't like immigrants don't like bankers much either.
quote:It was passed-off as being similar to household economics, eg balancing your income and expenditure. It was something else the centre & left failed to oppose and defeat, because it is stuffed full of falsehoods.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Monetarism is simple and intuitive?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones.
quote:Yes, and the history of austerity is that it has never done this anyway (at least not in isolation - there are a few cases of tiny economies which have implemented austerity but then recovered because of expansive spending by their major trading partner).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The analogy between national and household budgets isn't even applied consistently. The whole point of austerity is to reduce national debt
quote:Brecht got there first:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I've lived in tory seats on a number of occasions and the evidence I've seen suggests they're just that, or more precisely that they believe wicked and/or stupid things. And most Labour-tory swing voters are utter morons. If we start pandering to their ignorant opinions then some of them will vote Labour rather than tory, but at the cost of having to pander to their ignorant opinions on e.g. immigration. I'm sick of pretending all opinions are equal. They're not.
Originally posted by Callan:
I've spent the better part of a decade in safe Tory seats. When the left realise that Tory voters aren't wicked, stupid or both they may start winning again.
quote:
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
quote:And it is a simple concept. To illustrate why it is false, one must use reality, which is much more complex. And doesn't provide a simple solution.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It was passed-off as being similar to household economics, eg balancing your income and expenditure. It was something else the centre & left failed to oppose and defeat, because it is stuffed full of falsehoods.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Monetarism is simple and intuitive?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The key factor is simplicity. The Conservative messages are simpler to present than the liberal ones.
quote:I think - though an actual economist is free to correct me - that in monetarist terms the governments strategy of "on the one hand QE and on the other hand austerity" was fairly incoherent as it amounted to taking money out of the economy by cutting public spending and then printing money to replace it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Again: austerity is indeed simple, but it is not monetarism.
quote:I don't think that the Tory economic policies are monetarist. When was the last time the government instructed the Bank of England to release more cash into the economy (or, indeed, drag more cash out of the economy)?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Monetarism is not austerity. Monetarism is the idea that you can manage the economy by mucking about with the money supply. Hence quantitative easing.
quote:Yep, construction of the 2017 version of the welfare queen.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Preferably, of course, punishment of someone down the road, who is poor and/or disabled and/or ill and/or old. Why should they swan about watching Sky, drinking, and smoking their lungs to death?
quote:I suppose (optimistically speaking), that this goes in cycles. We have punish the poor for about 15-20 years, then the pendulum swings back to some sort of compassion, OK for a bit, then hit the bastards again. The thing is, the rich need all the money.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yep, construction of the 2017 version of the welfare queen.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Preferably, of course, punishment of someone down the road, who is poor and/or disabled and/or ill and/or old. Why should they swan about watching Sky, drinking, and smoking their lungs to death?
quote:If you have any evidence that the other parties policies are based on solid economic theories I would be delighted to see it. Edmund Dell wrote a book on the Chancellors of the Exchequer from Dalton to Lamont and pretty much concluded that the only ones who knew what they were doing were Gaitskell, Thorneycroft, Jenkins, Healey and Howe. If he had done a second edition he would have probably added Clarke and Darling to the list and made regretful noises about Brown.
Actually, although they'll use impressive sounding words to create an impression that their policies follow a defined economic theory, the reality is different. The Tory Party economic policy is basically a mix of make-it-up-as-we-go-ism with what-we-can-con-punters-to-vote-for-ism. With the sad truth being that a large number of punters have swallowed the whole mirage hook, line and sinker and actually believe that a) the Tories are the only party with economic competance and b) that the solid economic theories underpinning other parties policy is bunkum.
quote:There could be something in that. Take all those period dramas and current fascination with ancestors who were smitten with proper grinding poverty, it is as if some sort of yearning is going on.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My wife reckons that austerity is loved by many English people, as it pleases their fierce Protestant conscience, which demands punishment for unknown crimes. I couldn't possibly comment.
quote:To be honest I'm kind of losing sight of what my original point was, which suggests I might not have one ...
Originally posted by Callan:
Which does, kinda sorta, make lilBuddha's point as this sort of thing hardly fits snugly onto the side of a bus.
quote:These policies may be wrong and stupid, but if you appeal to selfishness and greed, you can do wonders.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wrong and stupid are subjective. The Conservatives proposing the ideas are doing so for their benefit. The conservatives voting for those ideas, are often doing so against their benefit.
Lowering taxes is an example of this.
Many progressive ideas are less simple, like social services help society in general, even those who do not use them.
quote:Don't forget the rebranding of "not giving a shit" as "personal responsibility"
Originally posted by Jane R:
...by rebranding them as 'self-reliance' and 'thrift'.
quote:I think there is something in this - but the more powerful influence is the kind of kind of resentment built up by 'retail grievance' - the kind of media that makes money by selling anger as a consumer product.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
These policies may be wrong and stupid, but if you appeal to selfishness and greed, you can do wonders.
quote:I don't mind people voting out of rational self-interest that much, unless they're wealthy enough that they're just trying to rig the game so they can rack up their own score. What I mind is when people are really lousy at estimating the effect of voting a particular way on them and their family and end up voting for parties that will screw them.
Originally posted by Callan:
But in any event it seems eccentric to assume that the electorate should cast their votes out of left-wing idealism and get cross when they think that their well being and that of their family are significant factors in their decision making.
quote:Scary thought, if she does engage dialog with the North. Could that paradoxically mean the US can take an very aggressive line on the basis that NK can only really retaliate against the South leaving it either not attacking, or (more likely) attacking and doing the damage to both that the talks were meant to avoid.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea)
quote:I don't think an election in South Korea is going to change British voters' minds about the ineptness of Jeremy Corbyn.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just curious, with the election of Macron and Moon Jea-in (of South Korea) would you say the tide might be turning against the Torie party, or is your election just too soon to have any real impact?
quote:Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
The Labour policies themselves are decent enough: a million new skilled jobs, and a National Investment Bank, a “rights at work” program, a million new homes to be built in five years, reconstructing education as the National Education Service, with similar universality and equality of treatment, renationalising railways (by not renewing lapsing tenders) and increasing ‘social democratic control’ of the energy system.
All good stuff, and a program that links transformation of production with consumption and services, as any modern social democratic program should. Trouble is, Corbyn can’t stick to the script. Whenever a microphone is stuck in front of him, he talks exclusively of the poor and dispossessed, those in terrible housing, people on zero-hour contracts, etc, etc. “Take a walk around the streets of our big cities at night” to see the poverty, he suggested in a BBC interview, sounding like he was on the edge of bursting into Streets of London: “so how can you tell me you’re lonely, and say for you that the sun don’t shine …” etc, etc.
This reflex act is a measure of Corbyn’s decency, the fact that he’s really a 19th-century radical liberal in modern garb, passionately concerned with the genuinely poor and exploited. Corbyn would like to be heading an army of such people, banging their fists bloody on the gates of power.
...
Yet even such new voters, if they could be turned out, would not be enough. Corbyn must know, at some level, that he has to offer something to the broad middle classes.
quote:Your social circle must be very different from mine. I don't know anyone who says "my payslip says I'm getting less money than I was for the same amount of work but the Daily Mail says that Theresa May is going to stick it to Brussels so I'm going with the Daily Mail".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even worse, IMO, are the large number of people who don't appear to even try and think things through and just believe what the papers tell them is in their best interest.
quote:Both. There's been no serious, attempt to take voters off the Tories, which is the only way to win an election for the Labour Party and his ratings have been poor from the outset.
Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
quote:I don't know if you can remember Arthur Calwell, Leader of the ALP between 1960-67. Calwell was recognised as a decent and honourable man, who had served his party faithfully for decades. He had obtained ministerial experience in a very busy portfolio. At the election the year after he became leader, the ALP scored a majority of the popular vote and took a major swing of seats in its favour. In all his long period as an MP Calwell remained loyal to his party - from memory he never disobeyed a whip. In other words, he showed many qualities of loyalty and experience sadly lacking in Corbyn.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Does this, on an Australian (left-wing) news site, ring true about Corybn and Labour?genuinely poor and exploited. Corbyn would like to be heading an army of such people, banging their fists bloody on the gates of power.
Is this lack of broad appeal the problem, or is it in the person of Corbyn? He is just unliked?
quote:Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours). Though the Tories do play the "Labour will raise tax/NI and you'll take home less" card every election - even when Labour have committed to not raising taxes (at least, not for the vast majority of people). What people probably notice is that their pay doesn't seme to go quite as far as it used to - their rents, utilities, groceries etc all cost more. Which is where the Tories play their "the economy is safe in our hands" and "Labour policies will result in more inflation" cards, which again are not entirely truthful when looked at objectively. And, the majority of our papers just trot out the Tory line as though it's objective truth and people believe it. The same could be said about the verifiably false statements in the media about immigration (immigrants take our jobs, houses, welch off the NHS etc), even British history (Britain was a great trading nation ... well, not exactly - we traded a lot but the money was made through manufacturing turning imported raw materials into exportable products, and so the "great trading nation" can only really be recreated if we also invest in manufacturing).
Originally posted by Callan:
I don't know anyone who says "my payslip says I'm getting less money than I was for the same amount of work but the Daily Mail says that Theresa May is going to stick it to Brussels so I'm going with the Daily Mail".
quote:Presumably that's where the swingometer currently sits.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The BBCs Iain Watson reported that most labour MPs with majorities of less than 5,000 are in trouble. I don't know how he knows that of course...
quote:I have (thanks to a NI rise last year). I'm presumably (hopefully!) not alone?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).
quote:Same here. NI rise due to changes to state pension and rises in occupational pension contributions.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I have (thanks to a NI rise last year). I'm presumably (hopefully!) not alone?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).
quote:All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.
quote:You mean like Kezia Dugdale? Neil Kinnock?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
quote:Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.
quote:Mrs Tor lost £5k pa a few years back, due to a 'take massive paycut or to be transferred into a pool of people we're threatening to make redundant' deal, which we just couldn't risk.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
]Well, I don't think anyone has seen their take home pay cut (without having, say, cut their hours).
quote:It depends. If you were paying "Contracted out" NICs then your contribution would have risen from April 2016 to pay for the enhanced state pension. That affects almost all of the public sector plus many others with an employment based pension scheme.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Wasn't the last NI rise in 2011/12? Which would have been under a (marginally moderated by the LibDems) Conservative government. The same party warning us of tax rises if people vote in a Labour government.
quote:If defeat is due to personal attacks rather than policies why should he even consider standing down? The Tory campaign is, yet again, an entirely personal one. If Labour were to attack Mrs May in this way and this extent they would be accused of sexism.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.
quote:Historically, that's just wrong. Churchill hung on after 1945 (with Labour majority 145!), Attlee after 1951, Gaitskell after 1959 (when the Tories won a majority of 100!), Heath in 1966 (when Labour won a majority of 98!), Wilson in 1970, Heath in 1974, Heath in 1974 (at which point he was defenestrated by Mrs T.) and Kinnock in 1987 (when the Conservatives won a majority of 102!).
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat. A leader who refuses to do so forfeits any claim to decency. However there's no point any Labour MP challenging Corbyn, because the Labour Party's corrupt electoral system would put him in again. So if they want to end the lunacy of the present regime they would have no choice but to split. Perhaps Jezza will surprise everyone and do the right thing.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So the mutterings today are that a hundred Labour MPs are planning to split and form a new party if there's a Conservative landslide and Corbyn doesn't quit.
quote:All election campaigns consist of both policies and personal attacks. Hague was "weak, weak, weak", Major was a hopeless duffer, Howard was a combination of Dracula and Svengali. By your logic no defeated party leader need resign after a General Election.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:If defeat is due to personal attacks rather than policies why should he even consider standing down? The Tory campaign is, yet again, an entirely personal one. If Labour were to attack Mrs May in this way and this extent they would be accused of sexism.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Harold Wilson? Winston Churchill? Gladstone? Disraeli?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
All decent party leaders of any political persuasion always resign following defeat.
Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been consistently supported by a majority of Labour party members. For sure, it looks like he's not all that popular with the wider electorate, but he is what the Labour membership has consistently said they want. Claiming that his election is in some way corrupt is basically a falsehood.
quote:The main problem is that the right have very successfully redefined politics, so that what was left-of-centre Social Democracy thirty or forty years ago, and adopted by the "One Nation" group of the Conservative party, is now regarded as neo-Communism.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think the English will ever elect left-wing politicians, except in an emergency. So what does the left do? They can rage impotently on the sidelines, or join Labour, I guess. Or in Scotland, SNP.
It's all very repetitive also. I remember Callaghan decrying Keynes at the Labour conference. What can one do?
quote:See my last paragraph.
Callan, timing does matter. The longer Corbyn is there, the longer before Labour can regroup and the the Tories have even longer to dismantle reforms dating back to Attlee's government.
quote:On the other hand the experiment in untrammelled Tory hegemony does not appear to be particularly successful in delivering left-wing policies. It didn't happen on the previous occasion that it was tried in the 1980s, or, indeed, in the 1930s. If you want left wing policies you need left wing politicians who are sufficiently centrist and competent to deliver left-wing parliamentary majorities.
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
quote:If nationalisation of the railways isn't left-wing then what is? I also think its a bad idea that will lead to service reductions and decreased investment.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.
I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".
quote:If railway nationalisation is left-wing then I'm sure Margaret Thatcher's government would have privatised it. As it was some parts of the railway group, such as Sealink ferries and BR Engineering were sold off but it was 1994 before the railways themselves were privatised, and look at the fiasco of subsidised franchises, costing more than BR ever did and charging higher fares, plus a cowboy outfit (Railtrack) running the infrastructure, which had to be returned to the public sector in 2001.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If nationalisation of the railways isn't left-wing then what is? I also think its a bad idea that will lead to service reductions and decreased investment.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It looks for example like the Labour Party manifesto will propose scrapping university tuition fees, renationalising the railways and put a stop to the privatisation of the NHS. I hope they end the victimisation of benefit recipients too as the ends simply don't justify the means in human or financial terms. Yes Ian Duncan Smith, the blood is on your hands.
I'm not sure any of that counts as "left wing".
quote:To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
Scrapping tuition fees is a hideous idea that will lead to a reduction in the number of university places available, reduced facilities and support for the students who do manage to get a place, and job losses across the HE sector. It may well also lead to a reduction in the number of students from less privileged backgrounds.
quote:I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
quote:I went to University before tuition fees and it didn't appear to be socially exclusive in any way shape or form. People appeared to have got in on academic merit, including my housemate whose father couldn't read.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
quote:Some modern universities are little more than tech or commercial colleges that (somehow) have become able to award degrees in association with senior institutions. Even the polytechnics were more than that as they were centres of excellence in some field or other. I'm pretty sure parents will be happy to see their teenagers do apprenticeships that could lead to the professions (as used to be the case with law, engineering, architecture and could well be with IT nowadays) but the problem would be that there would have to be the prospects of jobs at the end of it - oh, but that's a problem with degree level education, where graduates end up in all sorts of low-paid jobs.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
quote:I work in HE, somewhere in the lower divisions along with the Torquay and Southend Uniteds of the sector.
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable.
quote:I attended university during the same period. There were undoubtedly a number of bright kids from comprehensives there. I should know, I was one of them. But there were a number of bright kids from my comprehensive who could have made the cut and, for whatever reason, didn't. And certainly public life appears to me filled with people whose posh schooling allowed them to parlay a meagre talent into some kind of eminence.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:I went to University before tuition fees and it didn't appear to be socially exclusive in any way shape or form. People appeared to have got in on academic merit, including my housemate whose father couldn't read.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm not convinced that "we shouldn't be sending your thick kid to university" will play terribly well on the doorstep. Nor am I convinced that if we close a couple of dozen universities that the wealthy and connected won't be able to get their posh but undeserving kids in ahead of the academically able children from non-academic backgrounds who might flourish in such an environment.
To be honest there are probably way too many students attending university. Proper vocational training from age 14 or so would be preferable. University is not the be-all and end-all, and if there are fewer places but some of those occupied by Hooray Henrys reserved for those from less privileged backgrounds then your concerns would be allayed.
quote:Surely if you'd gone posh skool, you'd refer to it as the foot of your stairs.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.
quote:I spent some time in a university that would probably be ranked solidly in the first division. The attitude of management was no different. Departments were ordered to keep failing students by any means possible, which generally meant that they stuck around enjoying the student lifestyle until some point in the middle of the final year, where they would finally face up to the crashing realization that having done no work at all for the last three or four years was not adequate preparation for their final exams, and they would drop out (either formally or informally).
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
in general and from a management perspective new entrants are effectively cash-cards to be inserted into the hole-in-the-wall of government funding and public cash extracted. Woe betide the department who loses a cash card before its 3 (or 4) year expiry date comes up.
quote:Well, posh boys' schools, bottoms, fat boys in the gym, naked boys in the pool, teachers come to watch, so it goes.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Surely if you'd gone posh skool, you'd refer to it as the foot of your stairs.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.
quote:Trains in the south-east have - generally - a slightly higher average utilisation than trains elsewhere. Additionally, rationalisation has seen lines close - which further skews the picture towards the south-east. Lastly, it is not just the rich who use the trains - the large majority of people who use the trains are not well paid stockbrokers - even in the square mile, for every well paid stockbroker there are plenty of cleaners, waiting staff etc using the trains.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never really understood why left-wing people cling to railway re-nationalisation as some kind of totem. My understanding is that most railway journeys are taken in south-east England. Why is making the bus drivers of Blyth subsidise the commutes of the stockbrokers of Surrey considered progresssive or socialist?
quote:Alan, it's not about the policies. Those of us interested in politics find it difficult to understand just how very different we are from the majority who just don't follow politics.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
quote:For the reasons you've given, I don't think being in the centre is that important.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
quote:And this is the problem, right here. Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act - an ostensibly well-balanced story about one of his campaign visits yesterday was illustrated with a picture taken from near ground-level showing his hand reaching out for the camera. He was probably just waving his hands around as he spoke, like most politicians do, but the subtext was clearly 'Labour is out to grab your money'.
A left-wing Labour party that presented itself as competent and offered a strong economic narrative could I think win elections...
quote:Let's look at he 1950's then: could a woman be prime minister then? Heck very few ministers were and for that matter had been women.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Meanwhile the Tories are busy decreeing that there are 'boy jobs and girl jobs' and trying to take us back to the 1950s, and somehow this is all perfectly OK. Strong and Stable Leadership, is there honey still for tea, and all that.
quote:I think this is a myth - for complicated reasons. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that at the moment 'everyone knows' that you win elections from the centre and at some point the newspapers may or may not present you as the centre (which at the moment is done by presenting your opponent as of the radical left).
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
quote:I think that (in most cases) elections are won by winning the centre. That doesn't mean you need to be in the centre to win. Most parties have a relatively small core vote who will support them come hell or high water. Almost by definition that is insufficient to win outright (otherwise that party would always win), There is a very much larger group of people who will potentially switch alliegence, and to win an election you need to convince enough of them to vote for you. This group sit between the extremes presented by different parties (neither particularly left or right, up or down), so it's not unreasonable to call them the centre - and they're the people who need to be won over.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:For the reasons you've given, I don't think being in the centre is that important.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
quote:c50% of the population are tribally Labour or Tory and would vote for a pigs bladder on a stick if it sported a rosette of the appropriate colour.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Question: why do the Lib Dems appear to be tanking? Polls showing 8-11%, only a little ahead of UKIP.
quote:A very prescient comment. The new head of Corbyn's election campaign, Andrew Murray, left the Communist Party only last December to join Labour. While at the Communist Party he declared 'solidarity' with 'People's Korea'.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The problem is not with Labour's manifesto. It is that the ordinary voter looks at the public image of Jeremy Corbyn (and more particularly those around him) and do not much care for what they see.
quote:Tons can go wrong for the UK - loss of labour supply through idiotic immigration controls, loss of global influence through Brexit, ongoing austerity strangling the economy, trade barriers further strangling the economy, people in desperate need going without the welfare they need ... But, the Tories will be OK for at least another 5 years. And, that's all that counts, winning this round of the game.
Originally posted by rolyn:
One has to wonder what can possibly go wrong for her and her Party in the years ahead.
quote:I'm wondering about this. I am reading about it, in left leaning sources admittedly. Has it been the case for a while that major news sources are pro Conservative, as some of ours are here, or is it primarily because of the person of Corbyn?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act...
quote:An overwhelming majority of the print media is pro-tory, and the broadcast media takes its clues about what is news and where the "centre" is from the papers. There are some non-tory papers, but their sympathies lie more with the lib dems (Guardian, Independent). The only Labour papers are The Mirror (and they're on the anti-Corbyn side of the Labour divide) and The Morning Star (which until the collapse of the USSR was indirectly funded by the soviet embassy).
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:I'm wondering about this. I am reading about it, in left leaning sources admittedly. Has it been the case for a while that major news sources are pro Conservative, as some of ours are here, or is it primarily because of the person of Corbyn?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act...
quote:ID cards have been a point of debate in politics for many years. They were actually introduced by the Labour government in 2005, but implementation had not been completed before the whole scheme was scrapped under the Cameron government in 2010. The interesting thing is it's yet another reversal of the position of David Cameron (who opposed ID cards) and picking up what had been Labour policy.
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. The Tory manifesto wants compulsory ID for voting. In the US, such laws are strongly opposed by the left because many people here do not have government issued ID, and they tend to be disproportionately people of color and/or poor. Is any of this the case in the UK?
quote:I don't think that is technically blasphemous. What the pictures and captions are doing is marking out how much of the rhetoric politicians use is incompatible with what Jesus actually said.
Originally posted by mikey mikey:
Satire it may be, and arguably blasphemous, but this really puts things into perspective. Vicars daughter, indeed.
https://twitter.com/Tory__Jesus
quote:Sure, though they aren't as tied to notions of God and Country in the same way that the Right is.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The left, though, is not as immune from a similar exercise as it fondly imagines.
quote:This was actually introduced in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there are historic concerns about voter suppression and, to avoid this, after their pilot scheme, they introduced a free ID card which one could acquire if one was not in possession of a driving licence or a passport. The Government have made no mention of any such thing which leads me to suspect, they are not bothered if it decreases turnout.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
quote:What are the "existing forms of ID"? Driver's licenses? Others? Would a voter ID law require that the ID have a photo? That it come from the government (national? local?) What about people who have no such ID (as Alan Cresswell asserts) and who would have trouble getting one (due to poverty, frailty, etc.)? In the US we have some situations where people cannot get ID without a birth certificate, and because hospitals have burned down or lost records or simply because some poor elderly people born at home I would imagine never got one in the first place, getting a birth certificate may be impossible. Sometimes (in rural parts of the US) the nearest government office where someone could get an ID (assuming one can afford to) is at least a day's journey each way from where someone lives, and the homebound, caregivers of others, and others often cannot make the journey easily, if at all.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
quote:At present, in the UK, you do not need ID to vote. Prior to an election everyone registered to vote will receive a voting card (which has your name and address, plus information about where your voting station is and how to cast your vote) - mine arrived on Wednesday. If you have this, you just turn up and hand it over and everything is fine. If not you can still vote, but may be asked to prove your name and address (but, probably won't be).
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:What are the "existing forms of ID"? Driver's licenses? Others? Would a voter ID law require that the ID have a photo?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
quote:He didn't call for anything particular beyond 'photographic and other forms of ID' (both of which are problematic). The only part of the UK where photographic ID is a requirement for voting is NI, and the cost of the Electoral ID Card is bourne by the government over there.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't have access to Pickles' report to hand, but I think he suggested a flexible system that included utility bills. Before the election was called there were plans to pilot the proposals.
quote:The incidence of voter fraud is a fraction of a percent (certainly lower than the incidence of illegitimate spending on elections). The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
While voter fraud is rare, there have been some high-profile cases recently (and there might be more given the difficulties in bringing an electoral fraud case to court). As a resident of an area hit by widespread voter fraud, I find myself very sympathetic to these proposals.
quote:Well, quite. Having fake voters turn up in person and vote is a slow and difficult method of electoral fraud. It's far easier to just control a big stack of postal votes.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
quote:The incidence of voter fraud is very low as far as we know, but then low levels of conviction don't necessarily mean that there is low levels of fraud - because it is only normally noticed when some idiot literally attempts to stuff a ballot.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The incidence of voter fraud is a fraction of a percent (certainly lower than the incidence of illegitimate spending on elections). The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
quote:Yes, so perhaps it would be prudent to get an idea of the scale of the problem before deciding to spend money solving it [the Electoral Commission best estimates are in a miniscule fraction of 1% and presumably they are best placed to know at present]
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The incidence of voter fraud is very low as far as we know, but then low levels of conviction don't necessarily mean that there is low levels of fraud
quote:Did any politician or party ever describe themselves as weak and unstable?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Apparently the Tories are for:
- Strong and stable leadership in the national interest;
- A fairer society where success is based on merit, not privilege;
- Affordable homes while protecting our precious Green Belt;
- Opportunity in education and confidence in the NHS;
- Effective policing and immigration control;
- A strong economy where everyone plays by the same rules;
- A global outward-looking, united country that we are all proud to call home
quote:Or as Anatole France put it, the majesty of the law, which impartially forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sure the tories do want everyone to play by the same rules - the rules may be more favourable to the rich but they're still the same rules for everyone e.g. if you're too poor to look after yourself you'll need to go into the workhouse as God intended. Same rule for everyone.
quote:
So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet.
quote:You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
quote:Someone seems to have forgotten that Boris Johnson is our current Foreign Secretary.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Obviously Ms Thornberry is more than competent to be Foreign Secretary with such a fine grasp of the nuances of policy, etc.
quote:In response to your points:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
quote:He agreed to give a Darius Guppy the address of another journalist, so that Guppy could send a couple of goons round to duff him up. On the scale of nastiness, I think this trumps an injudicious tweet.
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty:
quote:Is this related to the income requirements for immigrant spouses?
Originally posted by Makepiece:
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
quote:1. The increase in income needed to bring a non-British spouse to the UK.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:In response to your points:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
1. "the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy"
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
2. "wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children"
As above setting a policy on the minimum number of children would be akin to communist China and is not a policy that I would remotely support however as above I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
3. "wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care"
Again baffled. Of what are you speaking?
4. "wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc."
is this a Conservative policy? I'd be grateful for a reference if it is as I've been unable to find one.
quote:Yep. A friend of mine can't live in the UK with his American wife because his income isn't high enough (the fact that she is in work and can work from anywhere in the world doesn't seem to matter).
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Is this related to the income requirements for immigrant spouses?
Originally posted by Makepiece:
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
quote:The three main reasons why I disagree with this:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Yup, the state will be smaller, the poor will be poorer, the sick will be sicker, the children will be hungrier, but that will be alright because the state will leave the people that aren't affected to manage their money themselves and feel they are alright, Jack.
Of course, that management could include giving to alleviate the hardships of those Jesus said we should care for, but when that was not done by the state, not everyone was helped. Individuals were historically very picky about who got helped. And the people who wanted to opt out of giving could do so.
As you want.
quote:No it doesn't because I've observed what other countries have experienced with a big state. Take Norway's problems with its draconian child social services. The state forcibly removed five children from Romanian immigrants because they had smacked their children (the Bodnariu case). As Romanians they did not know how strict the Norwegians were on smacking (it is illegal). I know what you are thinking- the parents were probably actually abusive, but no if you look at the case properly there is no evidence of abuse. The reality is that if the state became too big here we would have looney left wingers telling us that how to parent, advocating hormone suppressants to children confused about their gender (probably suggesting that the state pay for it) and strengthening the already draconian hate speech laws.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you can't begin to imagine then that rather suggests they don't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."
Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.
4. "ID requirements for voters"
I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.
quote:If a state spends £5 billion on the secret police and nothing on a health service then it is smaller than a state that spends £10 billion on a health service and £10 million on internal security. if however you want to retain freedom from the state then the larger state of those two is preferable.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."
Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.
4. "ID requirements for voters"
I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.
quote:Meanwhile, in the real world, there were over a million visits to Trussell Trust foodbanks in the last 12 months.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The reality is that if the state became too big here we would have looney left wingers telling us that how to parent, advocating hormone suppressants to children confused about their gender (probably suggesting that the state pay for it) and strengthening the already draconian hate speech laws.
quote:If you're trying to decide whether to grow or shrink the state within a liberal social democracy non-liberal authoritarian societies are a false reference. You can't compare apples outside a basic liberal democratic framework with oranges within such a framework.
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer. Look at the poverty of pretty much any communist country. The reality is that high living standards are created by society not the state. I do not believe that a bigger state will reduce poverty as I think it would lead to higher unemployment, higher inflation and slower wage growth.
quote:Empirically the period since 2010 will prove you wrong, government spending has shrunk and the poor have got poorer (precisely because the programs that they normally benefit from have been cut).
Originally posted by Makepiece:
1. I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer.
quote:Which is very much the gist of a post appearing on Theresa May's official page on facebook, excerpts:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:He might be a friend of some in the PIRA but he never actually killed anyone, unlike this government which has killed thousands through reassessment of the ability of disabled people to work.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:If she believed this, why would she call for an election at a time when there was a small chance such a person would get into power?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:I feel slightly more cheerful now! I shall be listening to the Now Show this evening too.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty: Ms Thornberry's tweet commenting on a house with English flags and a white van (remember that) show just how unpleasant Lady Nugee can be.
Other than that, she fits into the Shadow Cabinet a treat, following the lead of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in not using the nearest 'sink comp' for her children but sending them 14 miles north to something rather better. And her protests about the lack of affordable housing ring rather hollow, bearing in mind she owns three properties herself (she lives in Barnsbury, one of north London's least affordable districts).
quote:Meanwhile Fallon/Assad, Johnson/King Salman, May/President Xi.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:It doesn't, or at least not in the sense implied. By the logic used to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, you could just as easily accuse Ian Paisley, or indeed Blair or Thatcher.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:You may also consider that the Tories have a serving councillor in Croydon who used to be an active IRA member.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:No, I disagree. Paisley, Blair and Thatcher may indeed have engaged with Sinn Fein/IRA and indeed sometimes compromised with them, but they did so out of necessity given the roles they held to achieve specific aims (peace in Northern Ireland, good governance in the province, etc.) There's no suggestion that Paisley, Blair or Thatcher were sympathetic to the aims of the IRA. The opposite is the case with Corbyn: he had no reason to deal with the IRA and yet did, giving sympathetic statements about their cause.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:It doesn't, or at least not in the sense implied. By the logic used to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, you could just as easily accuse Ian Paisley, or indeed Blair or Thatcher.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:Who all met those people in some kind of official capacity as part of the government's (or Parliament's) role in dealing with other countries. There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs. That's not the case with Jeremy Corbyn and armed Irish republicanism.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Meanwhile Fallon/Assad, Johnson/King Salman, May/President Xi.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:Who has, as I understand it, renounced and now deeply regrets her links with the IRA. I'm not aware that Jeremy Corbyn has apologised for his pro-IRA statements/actions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You may also consider that the Tories have a serving councillor in Croydon who used to be an active IRA member.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If the Breton Cap fits...
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
quote:Certainly not sympathetic enough with their regimes' victims to stop selling them weapons or taking their money. Or allowing them to buy UK infrastructure. Or calling them 'friends' and 'valued trading partners'.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs.
quote:Given that they have each offered those regimes material support, such distinctions are splitting hairs.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs.
quote:Not really, it's a matter of tactics. In the former case Sinn Fein needed to be shown that there were peaceful ways to pursue their goals. Labour people needed a different message from tories about Brexit, and the lesson Labour rightly took from the referendum in Scotland is that singing from the same hymn sheet as the tories does no-one any good and the singer potentially mortal harm.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is not coherent, and shows muddled thinking at best, is to be chummy with Sinn Féin and then be finicky about sharing a platform with Mr Cameron in order to prevent Brexit.
quote:Dunno, but at this rate it looks like we're heading for a hung parliament.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?
quote:It may be complacency. They had a 20 point lead in the polls, they had Corbyn tagged as a mugwump, and so on. But actually, he is quite good at campaigning with crowds, whereas May looks like a sixth former who has never been outside the vicarage.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?
quote:Universal benefits may look superficially less redistributive than means-tested benefits, but I think they're more progressive overall. There are several advantages to universal benefits. They give everyone a stake in the benefit. They mean that the benefit isn't stigmatised as a sign of relative failure. You don't have any invidious lines on which someone on the wrong side of the line loses out. There's much less money and time spent administering who qualifies and ensuring nobody gets what they're not entitled to.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm less sure about student fees - it certainly sounds like a vote-winner from Labour, although I've had conversations with serious academics who say that the Scottish "free education" model is less progressive than the English fee-based regime for the poorest students.
quote:As far as I understood the argument, the issue is to do with the availability of living-cost grants - on the basis that the tuition fee part makes no difference whilst a student - and that the living-cost grants in Scotland were not progressive.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Universal benefits may look superficially less redistributive than means-tested benefits, but I think they're more progressive overall. There are several advantages to universal benefits. They give everyone a stake in the benefit. They mean that the benefit isn't stigmatised as a sign of relative failure. You don't have any invidious lines on which someone on the wrong side of the line loses out. There's much less money and time spent administering who qualifies and ensuring nobody gets what they're not entitled to.
quote:I think it is a bit different to a health system in this respect: in a properly working economy, those who have higher qualifications should be earning more than those who don't. And so, it can be argued, a tax system that pays for university education is charging poor workers who never get a chance to go to university to put the privileged into jobs that they'd never have a chance to access.
The NHS is not means-tested. I think it's more progressive than any means-tested health-care service.
quote:On the other hand, a number of jobs in things like the care sector, both require a university level education and don't particularly pay much. Funding education out of properly progressive taxation would stop paying for university fees being a subsidy that the poor pay to the rich.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is a bit different to a health system in this respect: in a properly working economy, those who have higher qualifications should be earning more than those who don't. And so, it can be argued, a tax system that pays for university education is charging poor workers who never get a chance to go to university to put the privileged into jobs that they'd never have a chance to access.
quote:I suspect that they'll manufacture an excuse to walk away - they are already trialling this line in the media.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.
quote:Loads of election campaigns (all of them?) have a bit of a mid-campaign wobble. This is the Tory one.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm hearing people actually talking about the possibility of Labour winning. I doubt it, but still, it's interesting to watch the Tory clusterfuck and ensuing panic.
quote:Though presumably not walk away in the sensible direction (leave things as they are until we figure out what the hell we want).
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I suspect that they'll manufacture an excuse to walk away - they are already trialling this line in the media.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.
quote:I doubt very much that the Labour Party will win. However, the opposition, the EU negotiating team and members of her own party will have noted that she makes policy on the fly and gets rattled easily, when found out, and pretty much everyone will have noted that the claim that the whole thing was put about by Jeremy Corbyn was on the level of "the dog ate my homework" style of excuses. She can get away with this now, with the country in a seizure of nationalist lunacy and Catweazle as the Leader of the Opposition. When people start noticing the disparity between their pay rise and the rise in prices at the supermarket and with competent politicians harrying her about her policies, not so much. We complained about Blair and Thatcher but at least they had election wins and serious achievements under their belts before they went off their rocker.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm hearing people actually talking about the possibility of Labour winning. I doubt it, but still, it's interesting to watch the Tory clusterfuck and ensuing panic.
Bloody hell, is this how they're going to handle Brexit negotiations? Help. We're in trouble.
quote:A couple of commentaries on her have noted her colleagues complaints that she tends to dither (and then stick to her guns despite evidence to the contrary). In that vein the past year could be seen as procrastination on the level that would make a student supposed to be revising proud.
Originally posted by Callan:
However, the opposition, the EU negotiating team and members of her own party will have noted that she makes policy on the fly and gets rattled easily
quote:I thought that there was a law of political opposites, esp. at election times. If you feel weak and wobbly, then use the rhetoric of strong and stable. If you are always changing your mind, then go with trustworthy. You will get found out, but who cares.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I'm mystified by the whole thing about trust tonight. Apparently, May wants to fight the election on the basis of who do you trust!? When one party leader is virtually the textbook definition of consistent in his views, and she flip-flops virtually constantly, and hopes no-one notices. Corbyn may be weak (in TV bully pulpit persona, certainly) but he's not untrustworthy when it comes to his word. Wholly consistent. She isn't. I won't be voting for either of their parties (Tory safe seat, Lib Dems in 2nd but a LONG way behind) but it's an odd way to fight an election, on something you're not known for.
quote:I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?
quote:So do you think they want Labour to lose?
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?
Quite rightly.
quote:Not forgetting that Trump did win, and win despite all early expectations he would lose decisively.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.
quote:Do you mean because you think Corbyn is badly prepared to run a country and possibly doesn't really want the job? Maybe. But Theresa May is clearly equally badly prepared to run a country. At least Corbyn isn't going to U-turn at the whim of Paul Dacre, a bilious millionaire so out of touch he had to have the concept of an ATM explained to him.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?
Quite rightly.
quote:I think it is more like the feeling the Tory establishment had when they realised that Cameron's referendum to stop the Euro-skeptics had failed. They went into that feeling they couldn't lose but just as there is a good deal of hubris around, nemesis is being dealt out in larger measure than usual.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:I imagine the thought of Corbyn winning gives them the same fear knot in the stomach that we all got when we realised Trump might win.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories will still win, though. I'm curious to see how right wing Labour deal with this - do they want Labour to lose?
Quite rightly.
quote:It is easy to forget that she was hastily picked as a healing balm to to entirely unexpected Leave victory meteorite. A lot of debris is still descending from that, it might turn out that the iron lady Mk2 isn't made of the right metal.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
A couple of commentaries on her have noted her colleagues complaints that she tends to dither (and then stick to her guns despite evidence to the contrary). In that vein the past year could be seen as procrastination on the level that would make a student supposed to be revising proud.
quote:There seems to be a trend i.e. in the DNA of political parties who all seem to indulge in 'U-TURNS' a.k.a. "predictive programming," so that after the election they can do another u-turn returning back to their original intensions (having previously 'alerted' their intensions that of going against popular will/well-being of the people). The Lib-Dems did it when in partnership with the Cons., Labour did the same, Cons. did it in the past and no doubt will be doing so again (on this occasion bringing the dementia tax despite the 'u-turn'). In our local area, it is a case of voting for a guy who has done things for the local area, who will be getting the (family) vote. Our local councillor is an independent (ex Labour) voted in for opposing a local 'u-turn', his colleague and himself both becoming our local councillors, one of whom is now standing at the National elections and supported by the other. Will be voting for the underdog.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I just popped in to ask, after this morning's fiasco - unheard-of u-turning on a general election manifesto policy - does anyone else think the Tories are actually trying to lose?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it. I really really hope Corbyn and May will be able to appear together in Manchester today. Major and Blair managed it after Dunblane (although I believe they fell out over it afterwards on petty matters). Then they can do something constructive for the country today, in the way they both claim they want to.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been reflecting this morning how the Manchester attack is going to impact on the GE.
Without wanting to speculate or make assumptions about who or what has happened, it seems likely that the narrative of the GE campaign is going to change and that the Tories are going to gain votes.
Bollocks.
quote:Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.
quote:It will be a further indicator of the cheapshot it has been for many years. Successive UK governments have supported terrorists, albeit those overseas, for as long as anyone can remember. Our support for the anti-Gaddafi groups in Libya only served to cause civil war there and strengthen Da'esh.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.
I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.
quote:Open goal in the sense of opportunity. Security is not, to put it politely, one of Mr Corbyn's strengths. After a decent interval I expect the Conservatives to draw attention to this fact.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.
I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.
quote:But this isn't new, though, is it? And reports of Corbyn's past sympathies for the IRA resurfaced earlier this week. I'm not sure how recent events would change matters since the perception about Mr Corbyn already exists and appears widespread.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Open goal in the sense of opportunity. Security is not, to put it politely, one of Mr Corbyn's strengths. After a decent interval I expect the Conservatives to draw attention to this fact.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Um. Is that a typo? Surely the opposite is true - it is a goal for those who think Corbyn is weak on terrorism.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It's a terrible open goal for the "Corbyn liked the IRA" mob isn't it.
I guess we'll see if anyone uses it in the GE campaign. I'd hope not, but suspect it will come up in the next few days.
quote:He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy and has senior shadow cabinet members who have until recently (and perhaps still do, who knows?) backed the disarmament of the police and the abolition of MI5.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.
quote:That refers to a letter which came out of a meeting at which there were calls for MI5 and special police squads to be disbanded. John McDonnell was at the meeting but didn't see the letter, less still sign it. The Sun issued its usual half-assed correction.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy and has senior shadow cabinet members who have until recently (and perhaps still do, who knows?) backed the disarmament of the police and the abolition of MI5.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.
quote:Well, I was rather thinking of the interview where he opposed a "shoot to kill" policy with regard to terrorists. Right now I'm guessing the the public mood may have shifted from "theoretically unsympathetic" to "who's fucking side are you on?". And, whilst it may be the case in some circles that an appropriate response to a homicidal maniac letting off a bomb at a pop concert full of teenaged girls is to stress talking to the persons concerned in order to try and understand where they are coming from, many of the electorate will be thinking in terms of nicking the fuckers and locking them up. I also think that having friends from Islamic organisations which use suicide bombing as a tactic is not really a good look in an election campaign where a suicide bomber has just murdered a bunch of kids. People are wont to be judgemental about such things.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.
The relevant details are whether he would support the work of the police and security services in gathering intelligence on criminal activity within the UK, of which I have seen nothing to suggest that he would be any different from any other political leader. And, whether he would seek to address underlying issues that can lead to radicalisation or other criminal activity - and, he seems to be better placed to do that than Mrs May (he's already shown a willingness to talk to people who have grievances to try and understand where they are coming from).
quote:Which is, again, irrelevant. The number of occasions where shoot-to-kill is an issue is vanishingly small - and would not have included what happened in Manchester. If all the police at Westminster were armed then a shoot-to-kill policy might have saved one life, since those killed on the bridge were hit before any police officers could have possibly been in a position to shoot anyone. The only time it might need to be considered is in an intelligence lead pre-emptive raid on a known criminal gang, in which case that decision can be made in the planning of the raid without the need for a blanket policy (and, the police would still prefer to have suspects they can question than corpses).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.
quote:Google is your friend.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?
quote:Which I just addressed in the cross-post.
Originally posted by Callan:
Well, I was rather thinking of the interview where he opposed a "shoot to kill" policy with regard to terrorists.
quote:Obviously when someone has committed a crime, the appropriate response is to nick 'em, give 'em a fair trial and if found guilty lock 'em up for an appropriate period of time. Which is a matter of policing, and I've not seen any suggestion that Corbyn will undermine the ability of the police to do their job - quite the opposite as he's talking about increasing the number of police (even if Ms Abbott is unclear on the costs).
And, whilst it may be the case in some circles that an appropriate response to a homicidal maniac letting off a bomb at a pop concert full of teenaged girls is to stress talking to the persons concerned in order to try and understand where they are coming from, many of the electorate will be thinking in terms of nicking the fuckers and locking them up.
quote:There is a photograph with a letter that might be the same letter.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?
quote:On the first of those issues, however, the BBC Trust found that the BBC report by Laura Kuenssberg (on which the furore mostly turned) had presented what Corbyn had said as if it were an answer to something he had not in fact been asked, and used the answer as then presented to suggest opposition to other policies about which he had also not been asked. The BBC Trust found that the report breached the BBC's standards on accuracy, and as a result had also breached the BBC's standards on impartiality.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:He's also come unstuck on a shoot-to-kill policy and has senior shadow cabinet members who have until recently (and perhaps still do, who knows?) backed the disarmament of the police and the abolition of MI5.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Added to which the "Corbyn is weak on security" usually relates almost entirely on whether or not he would order a nuclear strike, or whether he supports military action in Syria or Iraq. Which is totally irrelevant.
quote:Google also brings up the Suspect Usuals saying the opposite.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Google is your friend.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I thought (but am open to correction if I'm wrong) that he was photographed holding the letter?
quote:I am sure you are right - but I don't quite understand the logic of this argument. Although it will be painted as "Terrorist's beardy friend" vs "(Strong and) Stable Mayble", the choice will in practise be "Untried and untested leader" vs "leader when this terrible thing was planned and carried out who presided over this terrible failure of intelligence and counter-terrorism."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's probably wrapped it up for the Tories. The links are going to be obvious, Corbyn, soft on terrorism, IRA, Hamas, Theresa May strong leader, you can practically write the headlines already.
quote:It's an interesting question, and there are obviously a whole range of counter-attacks available. I would be tempted to go full tilt, and say that Mrs May has proved to be unreliable and dishonest, blah blah blah, Mrs U-turn, and so on, you can't trust her with Brexit or security.
Originally posted by anne:
quote:I am sure you are right - but I don't quite understand the logic of this argument. Although it will be painted as "Terrorist's beardy friend" vs "(Strong and) Stable Mayble", the choice will in practise be "Untried and untested leader" vs "leader when this terrible thing was planned and carried out who presided over this terrible failure of intelligence and counter-terrorism."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's probably wrapped it up for the Tories. The links are going to be obvious, Corbyn, soft on terrorism, IRA, Hamas, Theresa May strong leader, you can practically write the headlines already.
Of course it is hideously unfair to apportion responsibility for this abomination to the Prime Minister - but I think that we are about to watch a narrative unfold where the leader of the opposition is seen as more responsible than the PM - or at least more likely to let something like this happen again.
How could this narrative from the right-leaning media be countered?
anne
quote:Extending the suspension on campaigning, and even more so moving the polling date, would be seen as saying terrorism can disrupt our democratic system. So, it won't be a long break in campaigning and the election date won't be moved - unless something very significant happens (of the level of further attacks or a very credible immediate threat to senior politicians out campaigning or threat to polling itself).
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
A bigger concern I have, is how long the campaign is suspended for now that the threat level has been raised to critical. If it continues for more than a couple of days, they should probably move the polling date.
quote:If only.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
...
(b) if they are, how do the authorities protect thousands of polling stations/counts? Last time I wandered into a GE count with a friend and sat very close to (as it happens) Nigel Farage. It doesn't require much imagination as to the damage I could have done if I was minded. ...
quote:I'm not sure why you find that hilarious. I despise Farage and his neo-Nazi sympathies, I could easily have practiced the "punch a Nazi" meme that night.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If only.
quote:Do you think they have a stance? Well, an incoherent one, I suppose. They will cobble together some meaningless statement about cooperation.
Originally posted by Sarasa:
I remember back before the Brexit vote when May was beeing fairly feeble about her support for remain one of the arguments she did put forward was the difficulties faced if we left the EU was over sharing intelligence about such attrocities as Monday nights attack in Manchester if we were no longer in the Union. Like others I think she is more likely to get a good majority now, but will this make her re-think her Brexit stance?
quote:As I posted on the other thread, the last year (by the time the new government is actually formed) could be seen as one long dither over how Brexit is actually handled.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do you think they have a stance? Well, an incoherent one, I suppose. They will cobble together some meaningless statement about cooperation.
quote:There are already peaceful and legal routes to address grievances in this country. The reason that the terrorists don't use them is that they know full well that most people don't accept that the fact we don't live under a Caliphate and that women are allowed to wear what they like don't really qualify as legitimate grievances.
My point wasn't in relation to current criminal activity. It's about how to change things so that the kids of today don't contemplate blowing themselves up at a concert in 5-10 years. It's about changing the attitude of societies to see that there is a peaceful and legal route to address their grievances.
quote:Then you and the popular sentiment in the country are mad and driving us off a cliff. Well done.
Originally posted by Callan:
but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.
quote:Which I didn't deny. But there are groups in society who don't see those routes, or don't think those routes are open to them. What finally ended the Troubles was when, through a lot of hard work of people talking to each other, both the Loyalist and Republican communities came to see that there was a political process by which they could work out their differences. That those communities have (largely) accepted that paramilitary and terrorist activities are not a sign of loyalty to their community but disloyalty, and as such information about such activities is much more likely to be passed to the authorities because a) those activities are seen as unacceptable and b) the authorities are more trusted to act sensibly on that information (ie: without rounding up and intering people, most of whom are totally innocent, or raiding properties with a "shoot to kill" policy that results in innocent people getting shot).
Originally posted by Callan:
There are already peaceful and legal routes to address grievances in this country.
quote:Yes, there are, and always have been, people who are just plain nasty. Some will always be loners and almost impossible to identify and deal with before they go over the edge and commit an atrocity. Most will probably be attracted to a cause or group where their nastiness is approved of and supported - many of those who joined the Irish paramilitaries would have been in that group, they didn't really care about the cause just a chance to knee-cap people. Some would join criminal gangs and express their nastiness through loan-sharking or other protection rackets, or anything else where they can just be nasty. Addressing issues of injustice so that one (or more) of the potential causes they might align with are removed probably won't change things significantly in regard to the plain nasty, they'll simply find another cause or outlet for their nastiness.
You overlook the existence of people who are just plain nasty.
quote:Last time I looked the UK was a democracy with free and fair elections, so I'm not convinced that "anyone who disagrees with me is insane" is really a useful line to take in persuading people that they may be wrong. I'd seriously consider voting Labour, btw, if I lived in a seat where they were remotely competitive (and had an MP or candidate whose views I could respect). It's not my fault (particularly as I voted for Kendall and Bradshaw) that Labour thought it was a good idea to elect someone as leader whose views on terrorism are somewhat awry from where the UK mainstream is, and then to bleat that people were being a bit unsympathetic. This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Then you and the popular sentiment in the country are mad and driving us off a cliff. Well done.
Originally posted by Callan:
but on the subject of terrorism I think that she is a better bet than Jeremy Corbyn. Now if someone like me thinks that, I am prepared to wager that it is a reasonably popular sentiment in the country at large.
quote:I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
quote:Exactly. We know what a compromise with Sinn Fein looks like and, despite the bit about treating nasty people like respectable statesmen, it's something we can all sign up to. What do we discuss with people who object, on principle, to young people having a good time? There are occasions when a compromise peace is important and necessary and occasions when peace is a euphemism for surrender. I think that this falls into the latter category.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
quote:I've no idea. But, until someone does start talking to radical Islamists (which is more than just ISIS) there's no way to know what scope there is to talk. ISIS are a spent force, they're going backwards in Syria and Iraq and once the Caliphate is gone they will have no credibility within the radical parts of Islam. So, we need to be talking to the people who support that form of radical Islam. In particular (since this is about the UK election) those in this country. And, we need to be talking to the wider Islamic community about what it is that is fueling radicalisation and what we can do to cut off that fuel supply. Until someone starts talking there's not much to go on. And, the right wing reactionaries who would treat any Muslim, any immigrant even, as a potential enemy to be kept at arms length and under surveilance (even worse start intering them) are not helping in one bit - in fact, quite the opposit.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
quote:It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces. I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done. British governments have endorsed all sorts of weird and wonderful people including the celebrated moment when Caron Keating gave Mrs Thatcher a hard time over her insistence that moderate members of the Khmer Rouge were necessary to the Cambodian peace process but, by and large, it is considered bad form by a democratic politician to support people who are committing terrorist atrocities against one's own country. I don't like May or Corbyn but only one of them has a track record of coming over all J.C. Flannel about, nay endorsing, this kind of shit, and it isn't Mrs May.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
quote:The previous US approach was to negotiate with those Sunni tribes and sheikhs who were tempted to follow IS, and previously Al Qaeda. It seemed to work with the latter, as the Awakening group of Sunnis eventually drove AQ out of tribal areas.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I've no idea. But, until someone does start talking to radical Islamists (which is more than just ISIS) there's no way to know what scope there is to talk. ISIS are a spent force, they're going backwards in Syria and Iraq and once the Caliphate is gone they will have no credibility within the radical parts of Islam. So, we need to be talking to the people who support that form of radical Islam. In particular (since this is about the UK election) those in this country. And, we need to be talking to the wider Islamic community about what it is that is fueling radicalisation and what we can do to cut off that fuel supply. Until someone starts talking there's not much to go on. And, the right wing reactionaries who would treat any Muslim, any immigrant even, as a potential enemy to be kept at arms length and under surveilance (even worse start intering them) are not helping in one bit - in fact, quite the opposit.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
quote:I'm not Alan, but I do remember that the core demand of Sinn Fein was a united Ireland. It won't happen however because Sinn Fein get fewer votes in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland. ISIS too has a political end, namely the establishment of a different kind of government in the middle east, particularly Iraq (which was left in the lurch after Saddam Hussein was deposed), Syria (all sorts of people want Assad out, and Britain & the US are equivocating as he is against ISIS) plus Libya, Yemen and who knows what others.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
quote:If you are on about killing people you have to consider the changes to the criteria that determine whether disabled people are able to work. This may not be as dramatic and horrific as bombings and shooting but it is just as certain, and this democratically elected government has done just that.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces. I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done. British governments have endorsed all sorts of weird and wonderful people including the celebrated moment when Caron Keating gave Mrs Thatcher a hard time over her insistence that moderate members of the Khmer Rouge were necessary to the Cambodian peace process but, by and large, it is considered bad form by a democratic politician to support people who are committing terrorist atrocities against one's own country. I don't like May or Corbyn but only one of them has a track record of coming over all J.C. Flannel about, nay endorsing, this kind of shit, and it isn't Mrs May.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't vote Labour, have no interest in their leadership issues. But I'm under no allusion that somehow the leader of the Tories is better for the country with regard to terrorism that the leader of Labour. That's plainly nuts.
Originally posted by Callan:
This was entirely predictable in 2015. Don't blame me that you kidded yourself that things could go otherwise.
quote:Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.
quote:Well, there is the actual material support that the US and UK governments have provided to AQ linked groups in Syria over the last few years.
Originally posted by Callan:
I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done.
quote:Furthermore 'Islamism' isn't some kind of monolith. To a large extent ISIS succeeded in the territory in which they formed their short lived state because of local forces (either tribal or otherwise) being willing to align with them - however temporarily - for local advantage or because they felt their own alternative was worse.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm not Alan, but I do remember that the core demand of Sinn Fein was a united Ireland. It won't happen however because Sinn Fein get fewer votes in the Irish Republic than in Northern Ireland. ISIS too has a political end, namely the establishment of a different kind of government in the middle east, particularly Iraq
Originally posted by Eirenist:
But, Alan, what would you propose to talk to ISIS about? Introducing Sharia Law? Mass forcible conversion to Islam? Taxing unbelievers? Forbidding the ringing of church bells? I'm just interested.
quote:I thought that British governments supported various Libyan groups, who fought against Gaddafi, and were of dubious Islamist credentials. Abedi's father is supposed to be a member of LIFG, which Gordon Correra (BBC) is saying was sometimes supported by the West. Links to AQ supposedly.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well, there is the actual material support that the US and UK governments have provided to AQ linked groups in Syria over the last few years.
Originally posted by Callan:
I struggle to think of anything remotely analogous Theresa May has done.
quote:Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.
quote:Are we confining this courtesy to the Islamists or is the plan to sit down with Jamie Copeland and Thomas McNair, while we are at it?
If you treat people like they're the enemy sooner or later some of them will act like it. If you treat people like potential friends then many of them may become genuine friends.
quote:What I don't understand is why Corbyn today is unable to condemn the IRA in clear, unambiguous terms. Asked (repeatedly) whether he thinks the IRA's actions were wrong he seems unable to say 'yes', even as part of a wider answer. I find it equally offensive and baffling.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Oh feck off. Thinking that someone who is using violence might actually have a genuine grievance is not the same as supporting the violence. Dickhead.
Originally posted by Callan:
It's not plainly nuts. Jeremy Corbyn supported the Irish Republican Army when they were blowing up British civilians and members of the armed forces.
quote:Mainly there needs to be a discussion within the UK. It doesn't need to be the government taking a lead, indeed it may be better if it isn't. Maybe a few "maverick" MPs with a passion for peace and justice (who don't mind that in 20 years time their name will be forever associated with sharing a platform with groups who were terrorists at the time). Churches and other faith groups. Local community groups, local councils. Anyone and everyone who is committed to trying to talk, as a better solution than further violence. Start the wagon rolling, and maybe the government can jump on later and take concrete actions.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
So 'we' (the British Government, presumably) are to sit down and talk with 'the Jihadists' (if a representative group of them can be identified, which has always been a problem) on behalf of - whom? Don't lets delude ourselves - it's the USA who are the major players here - and, of course, the Russians. The UK has only a walking-on role. Or are we talking about a separate deal in these post-Brexit times?
quote:What would such evidence look like? How do you measure success and how do you connect it to the action? Hamas recently revised their constitution to tone down the anti-Semitic rhetoric and move towards recognising Israel. Was that partly down to engagement from western politicians, including Corbyn? How do you tell, unless someone claims that as an influence. But, as backbench MPs, their influence was likely small. Jaw-jaw always has to be better than war-war, and putting Corbyn in a position to engage in this more influentially can only be a good thing.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>
I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.
quote:I'd be interested in links which prove Corbyn's support of bombing and shooting, as opposed to supporting a united Ireland.
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
quote:Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago. As he says:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'd be interested in links which prove Corbyn's support of bombing and shooting, as opposed to supporting a united Ireland.
Originally posted by Callan:
Corbyn's support for the IRA is a matter of public record and no amount of egregious cuntery on your part can erase that.
quote:
It cannot be said too often that there is nothing intrinsically objectionable about supporting the idea of a united Ireland. But if you did – or still do – support that goal you had a choice. You could ally yourself with the SDLP or you could chum around with Sinn Fein and the IRA. The choice mattered because it was a choice between decency and indecency, between constitutional politics and paramilitary politics. Corbyn, like his Shadow Chancellor, made his choice and chose indecently.
There is no room for doubt about this and no place for after-the-fact reinterpretations of Corbyn’s ‘role’ in the Irish peace process. That role was limited to being a cheerleader for and enabler of the Republican movement. No-one who was seriously interested in peace in the 1980s spoke at Troops Out rallies. The best that could be said of those people was that they wanted ‘peace’ on the IRA’s terms. In other words, they wanted the IRA to win.
quote:I'm not expecting you to change your mind on this, but your 'powerful' piece by Massie contains (at least) one glaring and potentially holed-below-the-waterline error.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago.
quote:Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm not expecting you to change your mind on this, but your 'powerful' piece by Massie contains (at least) one glaring and potentially holed-below-the-waterline error.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Alex Massie's piece in the Spectator is, for me, just as powerful now as when I read it a year ago.
Corbyn wasn't on the board of Labour Briefing. So all that stuff you think he published and approved of? Nope. Link.
quote:Actually, the specific claim was that he was on the editorial board in December 1984 when the article in question was published. The links by Rentoul do not relate to this time period.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
quote:I'm not the one making the claim that Mr Corbyn's approach to the IRA means he would be good at tackling Islamist death cults. Presumably the people who are making such claims have some evidence base for it.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:What would such evidence look like? How do you measure success and how do you connect it to the action?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Can anyone point to any evidence that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell achieved anything in their dialogue with the IRA and Hamas>
I accept that dialogue is usually part of the path to peace. I don't see much evidence that Mr Corbyn is actually good at it.
quote:For me the main point is that the current approach is not working. There has to be a better way, and simply labelling someone who does not hold to the current paradigm as "weak on terrorism" seems lazy at best, and possibly totally inaccurate. Whether opening dialogue between UK authorities and the radical (or, radicalisable) communities within the UK will produce significant and rapid reductions in terrorist incidents is difficult to judge (not least when the rate of terrorist attacks in the UK is very low it's difficult to measure changes in that rate). But, it seems to be worth a try - while not reducing the traditional intelligence-lead policing (which I've seen nothing to suggest any of the party leaders would advocate).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not the one making the claim that Mr Corbyn's approach to the IRA means he would be good at tackling Islamist death cults. Presumably the people who are making such claims have some evidence base for it.
quote:In the interview transcript Mr Corbyn denies any involvement with the publication beyond being a reader and a contributor. The links by Rentoul et al suggest his involvement was more than that.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Actually, the specific claim was that he was on the editorial board in December 1984 when the article in question was published. The links by Rentoul do not relate to this time period.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not quite convinced, I'm afraid...
quote:I've just seen this on an earlier episode of Have I Got News For You. Why is she so in the forefront of the party? Is it years of service? That interview seemed like a trainwreck...no consistency.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And Diane Abbott's done another interview:
Interviewer (ITN): Do you know the number of net losses so far for Labour?
Diane Abbott: At the time of us doing this interview I think the net losses are about 50.
Interviewer: There are actually 125 net losses so far.
Diane Abbott: Well the last time I looked we had net losses of 100 but obviously this is a moving picture.
quote:There are multiple narratives about those times. For example, I remember being told that after 1969, when the civil rights march was attacked, partly by off-duty cops, Catholic areas saw loyalist mobs breaking into houses, beating people up, and so on.
Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland were unjustly oppressed. Free and fair elections did nothing to resolve this, partly because the elections weren't free and fair, but mostly because the Protestants had enough of a majority to win even free and fair elections. (True. Ironically the army was originally sent into Northern Ireland to try to resolve the problem.)
Therefore, violence by the IRA ought to be judged much less harshly than it was judged by the media. If we accept the full argument, then if the IRA hadn't been violent the Peace Process might never have happened. Anyone complaining about people appearing on platforms with the IRA ought equally to complain about people appearing on platforms with the security services.
quote:In the same interview she stated that she didn't regard herself as British. In answer to the question "Would you see yourself as 'Black-British'" she gave the answer
(Ireland)“is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”
quote:So there you have it: the person proposing to become Home Secretary doesn't consider herself British, considers "British People" to be racist, and thought a defeat for the "British State" would be a good thing.
No, I would self-define myself just as Black. Though I was born here in London, I couldn't identify as British - and anyway most British people don't accept us as British. God! British people can be so racist
quote:Perhaps in reality that doesn't really matter any more. If he wins the election, Queenie is hardly going to refuse to go along with it is she?
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
quote:One can accept the world as it is and work within its structures without necessarily approving of them.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
quote:The Tories are going to win on a platform of kicking schoolchildren, kicking the NHS, kicking the disabled, kicking old people, punishing the poor, unemployed, sick. They've got a platform which is clearly bad for a very large percentage of the population.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
quote:I was just walking today in Newport, where the Uprising of 1839 led to people dying, being executed and transported - for the sake of things we now take for granted - including the secret ballot, payment of MPs and a vote for everyone.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.
quote:I would suppose there's an interesting legal answer, probably to do with the Queen's Two Bodies, and I would suppose it's probably invoked whenever a republican takes office as an MP. Practically I think it's generally recognised that as long as he pursues only legal and constitutional paths to a Republic he is loyal to the UK people as a whole.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
quote:Britain is a racist society. Not everyone in it and not all to the same degree, but it is still racist as a whole. Strides have been made, but anyone who actually thinks otherwise is blind.
Originally posted by L'organist:
considers "British People" to be racist,
quote:When was this? I can't find a date for this with a quick search. Diane Abbott is 63.
Originally posted by L'organist:
In an interview carried in Labour and Ireland (volume 2, number 5) a journal published by the Labour Committee on Ireland (which still exists, largely funded by various unions), Ms Abbot was quoted as follows
quote:Indeed. In Canada, we have had governments in Quebec, and the Official Opposition in the federal Parliament, formed by Quebec separatist parties, swearing allegiance to the Queen. Not to say that scruple is a luxury, but an excess thereof...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:One can accept the world as it is and work within its structures without necessarily approving of them.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
quote:Just as I did on my admission, all those years ago: I swore allegiance to HM and to "her heirs and successors according to law". In other words, my allegiance to HM will cease when a republic come about by lawful means. Nothing there to stop my advocating for that sort of change.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Never mind Diane Abbott. How can an avowed republican serve loyally as Prime Minister to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?
quote:If you mean the vote he'd take as PM, I'd say he'd have won the election by then.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.
quote:It depends. I agree with previous posters that there is no negotiation with ISIS - not because negotiation is weakness, but because there is nothing they want that it would be morally licit or feasible to give them. In this respect they are qualitatively different from the IRA or even Hamas, and different only in degree from Nazis.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether opening dialogue between UK authorities and the radical (or, radicalisable) communities within the UK will produce significant and rapid reductions in terrorist incidents is difficult to judge (not least when the rate of terrorist attacks in the UK is very low it's difficult to measure changes in that rate).
quote:There is a fairly good biography of Ms Abbott here - it does seem to me that she was entirely justified in having a chip on her shoulder in 1984.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
LilBuddha is right to say that there is still racism in British society; it is also right to say that there is much less racism than there was 40 years ago.
The statement "most British people don't see us as British" was true in Diane Abbott's youth, and IMO is largely false now.
Ah - now I find from Wikipedia that that was a quote from 1984. It sounds like a reasonable enough claim for that era.
quote:The analysis I've read seems to suggest it's more down to the hideous mess May has made over the dementia tax and u-turn(s) on a cap.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.
Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.
quote:Whilst I think that it would be pants-wettingly hilarious if May could only beat Corbyn by the same order of magnitude that Cameron beat Miliband, it should be remembered that this is but one poll. At one point during the 1997 campaign the Tories closed into within 5% of Labour's vote. You may recall that it didn't quite work out for them on the night.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.
Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.
quote:Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Whilst I think that it would be pants-wettingly hilarious if May could only beat Corbyn by the same order of magnitude that Cameron beat Miliband, it should be remembered that this is but one poll. At one point during the 1997 campaign the Tories closed into within 5% of Labour's vote. You may recall that it didn't quite work out for them on the night.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.
Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.
quote:Two weeks for some dirt to emerge regarding Theresa May. Most of the Tories have had an easy ride from Labour so far, with the exception of Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to cut welfare spending by killing the recipients.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.
quote:"Home Secretary May presided over massive cuts to the police force, leaving terrorists to blow your kids up". I don't think Labour will have the balls for that. UKIP seemed to try and blame May for not getting a grip on immigration yesterday, and predictably it got rather hot.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Two weeks for some dirt to emerge regarding Theresa May. Most of the Tories have had an easy ride from Labour so far, with the exception of Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to cut welfare spending by killing the recipients.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.
quote:He took an oath (actually probably an affirmation) took the Queen every time he became an MP. A purely symbolic oath is not worth refusing to take your seat over.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.
quote:I don't think he's betting the farm; it's what he believes, and probably has since Iraq. But watch the right wing distort it.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
YouGov has the Tory lead down to 5 points. I still think the Tories will win, but not by a landslide, and in that case May will not be able to claim an overwhelming mandate for hard Brexit.
Corbyn is betting the farm by blaming western foreign policy for radicalising jihadists - Could send his poll numbers 10 points either way. I'm starting to think that the bumbling polytechnic lecturer has a core of steel. The "apologist for terrorism" attacks just seen to bounce off him.
quote:As well as a policy that encouraged the two-way flow of extremists between Libya and the UK:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
"Home Secretary May presided over massive cuts to the police force, leaving terrorists to blow your kids up".
quote:Tell that to Sinn Fein.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:He took an oath (actually probably an affirmation) took the Queen every time he became an MP. A purely symbolic oath is not worth refusing to take your seat over.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.
quote:IIRC, that was (and may still be) a consequence of Sinn Fein party policy. Jeremy Corbyn was and is a member of the Labour Party which has no such policy. Sorry to be so dull and boring.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Tell that to Sinn Fein.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:He took an oath (actually probably an affirmation) took the Queen every time he became an MP. A purely symbolic oath is not worth refusing to take your seat over.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but what's happened to J.C.'s 'authenticity' and 'integrity' if he takes an oath of loyalty to the Queen? These things matter, and people have died for them.
quote:Dirt cuts both ways.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Two weeks for some dirt to emerge regarding Theresa May. Most of the Tories have had an easy ride from Labour so far, with the exception of Ian Duncan Smith's attempt to cut welfare spending by killing the recipients.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Also if we are talking about Corbyn's poll ratings, there is still a 17 point gap in the "favourability ratings" of May and Corbyn, at +1 to -16.
quote:Actually, if they are keeping something up their sleeve it is likely to be rather serious. Most of us will admit to opinions in private, among friends, that we would hesitate to express in polite company. Given what we know about JC in the public domain, it's not outwith the grounds of plausibility that there is something yet to come.
I mean, what exactly have they got? Corbyn talked to the IRA before it was socially acceptable to do so? He once appeared on the Iranian version of Andrew Marr? I believe the phrase is "priced in".
quote:However facetiously, you are giving May credit of a control and understanding that she has so far failed to demonstrate.
Originally posted by Callan:
I am fairly certain that Mrs May keeps in a desk drawer a slim but interesting file,
quote:I'm not certain your point. For all his issues, Corbyn is more qualified for simply being an adult. Even May is not in the same league of incompetent as Trump.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
quote:A heck of a lot more pleasant thought than one with Trump as President and May as PM. At least Corbyn won't be providing cover for Trump starting a war with Iran.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
quote:TBH, that is a very exclusive league.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Even May is not in the same league of incompetent as Trump.
quote:That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn. May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues or the civil service, beyond a certain ability to deflect blame onto other people (remember Hammond's budget?) and little interest in learning.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Corbyn certainly has had the experience to which you refer of being an MP for many years - something Trump sorely lacks. His time as Leader of the Opposition does not suggest to me that he has the ability to work with a team either of parliamentary colleagues or the civil service.
quote:Really? He ran a property empire that his father set up* and had a reality show. What else has he done?
Originally posted by Gee D:
at least Trump for all his faults has had a wider background than that.
quote:That's rather different. Most republicans in the UK accept that our current constitutional monarchy is legitimate, and supported by a majority of people in the UK. They would like to change that state of affairs by normal democratic means, such that the heirs and successors of HM are the new British Republic. It's not inconsistent to take the oath on that basis.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Tell that to Sinn Fein.
quote:Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
quote:Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues
quote:Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
quote:Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues
The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.
quote:The two articles you link to were written nearly a year ago. I believe them. I'm referring to Corbyn's behaviour since the leadership contest, which if you exclude Corbyn's lamentable handling of the Brexit bill, has shown marginal signs of improvement. Not much improvement, but his chief competitor is Theresa May, and I really don't think May's any better.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
quote:If by 'tried to accommodate' you mean he appointed them to cabinet positions and then entirely ignored them, making policy in their areas of responsibility off the cuff without consultation, then sure. There are too many accounts from people who tried to work with him to that effect.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
quote:I suspect some of that was over ideological differences, and in large part because they bought into the idea of him being an electoral disaster. Those that believed that then did their damndest to oust him, and failed.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:Vague to the point of vanishing. And this article is written by a would-be friend.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That is true. On the other hand, Corbyn has showed vague signs of being willing to learn.
quote:Er...ability to work with colleagues? He's managed to anger even those who were trying to work with him. Many of those MPs who supported the no confidence motion started out as supporters!
May's time as Prime Minister has equally not shown ability to work with colleagues
The main problem appears to be his lack of competence as a leader.
quote:But they are only planning to change the tax take by 48 billion, so they are allowing a little under 10% for people changing their tax arrangements in response to those specific changes. Which I think is a reasonable margin of error.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
* The £4bn margin of error to allow for uncertainty and behavioural change looks cautious until you realise that overall public expenditure at present is £772bn. In effect this margin of error is claiming a budget forecast accuracy of around 99.5%!
quote:No, this isn't about the Blairites.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Corbyn tried to accommodate many others of a different shade of opinion (ie, Blairites) in his shadow cabinet) but they either refused or threw their toys out of the pram. In short, they got in a snit about losing the leadership contest. None of that is Jeremy Corbyn's problem.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change...the entire membership were consulted...
quote:
He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.
quote:
...the massive growth in the size of the party itself.
quote:I think the narrowing of the polls is mainly down to the appalling Tory campaign. If Milliband were running Labour, he'd be a shoe-in for PM by now.
I am convinced that this goes some way to explaining the reduction in the gap in the polls.
quote:Owen Smith believes whatever he's paid to believe on any given day. That's why most Labour members preferred and continue to prefer Jeremy Corbyn. The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement. They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Yes, the membership has increased. But 38% of them don't want him. They'd rather have a nobody called Owen Smith, who ran with very similar policies, so they're not the issue. Again, it's basic leadership skills.
quote:Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Owen Smith believes whatever he's paid to believe on any given day.
quote:I've seen Corbyn-supporters saying that they hope the Tories wipe out the Blairites. I haven't seen so much of the other.
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
quote:Crowdsourcing and that is original, but that's not the thing. Corbyn has given us overwhelming evidence that he's a poor manager. Only 17% of his MPs supported him in the confidence vote. That's appalling- and for many/most of them, basic competence is the main issue.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think the leadership question is also an issue, to an extent, of culture change...the entire membership were consulted...
quote:Which is why he voted against the Party whip so often.
He is used to arguing for a given position, coping if it is not wholly adopted, and building consensus.
quote:I don't recall saying that, but please feel free to provide a link.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.
quote:Following on, I am hearing May is performing rather badly as time goes on. Is this wishful thinking by the left-leaning press I read, e.g.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
quote:(article behind paywall)
Theresa May has collapsed as the dynamic, presidential leader she was being lined up as. The fall has been rapid and stark. May looked wholly in command two weeks ago; now she looks imperious and irritable, as if the whole idea of an ELECTION against JEREMY CORBYN is an absurd thing to have to do at all, much less actually compete in.
quote:Probably to some extent, there's clearly a difference between the right and left wing press.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:Following on, I am hearing May is performing rather badly as time goes on. Is this wishful thinking by the left-leaning press I read, e.g.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Labour certainly is closing the gap on today's figures. Care to think about a world where Trump is US president and Corbyn UK Prime Minister?
quote:(article behind paywall)
Theresa May has collapsed as the dynamic, presidential leader she was being lined up as. The fall has been rapid and stark. May looked wholly in command two weeks ago; now she looks imperious and irritable, as if the whole idea of an ELECTION against JEREMY CORBYN is an absurd thing to have to do at all, much less actually compete in.
quote:You are correct, I had misread 'uncertainty' as referring to uncertainty in the economy as a whole.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But they are only planning to change the tax take by 48 billion, so they are allowing a little under 10% for people changing their tax arrangements in response to those specific changes. Which I think is a reasonable margin of error.
quote:And I stand by my original response to this analysis. If those allegations of incompetence are in fact true - and abundant evidence was presented from multiple sources at the time - then they don't somehow become less true just because the people making those allegations had mixed motives for doing so.
Re why the PLP opposed him, I stand by my original analysis - I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership
quote:This is a bit like one of those fundamentalist cults where if you question the leadership, it must be because you're a bad witness who doesn't love Jesus. Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
quote:You cult example would be true in normal times, but at the moment we have an election on - so Doublethink's question is valid - because at the end of the day you have only have a choice between one or the other.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:This is a bit like one of those fundamentalist cults where if you question the leadership, it must be because you're a bad witness who doesn't love Jesus. Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
quote:Because if you live in England and don't live in a constituency where the Greens or the Lib Dems have a fighting chance and you don't vote for Corbyn then May will get in. Khan, to pick a random example, may or may not be more competent than Corbyn, but he's not going to get in no matter what happens.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Why should Mrs May's incompetence be used as the baseline by which Labour leaders are judged?
quote:You said apropos of Jones that he didn't oppose the Tory welfare cuts which anyone with a shred of conscience would have done.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I don't recall saying that, but please feel free to provide a link.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Last summer you said Jo Cox hadn't had a shred of conscience so pardon me for not being persuaded.
quote:I live in a safe Labour seat.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
at the end of the day you have only have a choice between one or the other.
quote:Sure, though in general this principle works at multiple levels (national as well as party).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.
quote:Still no link. And who is Jones?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You said apropos of Jones that he didn't oppose the Tory welfare cuts which anyone with a shred of conscience would have done.
Cox voted exactly the same way as Jones, so if it's true of Jones it's true of Cox too.
That said, it's not true. They did oppose the welfare cuts as did the rest of the Labour Party. The claim they didn't is a smear. (Unless you think voting for an amendment doesn't count as opposing? If you think amendments don't count then do you think Corbyn actively supported May in refusing to protect EU nationals resident in Britain.)
quote:Smith. My mistake. No link because the Ship's archives are rotten. Found it.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Still no link. And who is Jones?
quote:The other aspect to comparing Mr Corbyn's competence to Mrs May's is what happens after the election.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Sure, though in general this principle works at multiple levels (national as well as party).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
betjemaniac made a good point last time round, that 'wasted' votes in safe seats are still valuable in establishing the legitimacy or otherwise of the winner in the minds of the electorate. But if my vote is of purely symbolic value, there is no reason why it particularly has to be for Labour rather than the Lib-Dems.
quote:Not necessarily. There is a link on the Trump thread which suggests people are loathe to change, even when they do not like what they have.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If, however, we say that Mrs May is monumentally incompetent, and Mr Corbyn still failed to defeat her, then, on the face of it at least, we are back into 'Mr Corbyn is monumentally incompetent' territory.
quote:1) They were voting for a sitting leader rather than electing a new leader.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement.
quote:Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
quote:Many of the 83% who didn't support him didn't start with an attack strategy, or any strategy apart from trying to make it work.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think allegations of incompetence were used as an attack strategy because it was known he and his policy positions were popular with the membership - so they had little else to use as a basis for a campaign.
I don't think he'd be overwhelmed as pm, he has grown into his current role. I challenge you to put forward 'evidence' of his incompetence that is not matched in scope by the Tory PM and cabinet.
quote:If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
Hammond pulled a U-turn days after his first budget, May pulled a U-turn on a manifesto pledge within 4 days of launch.
quote:If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
quote:I think that amounts to saying that Corbyn is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:Far from it. It could more likely suggest that fewer voters want the continued destruction of the social reforms that had been an agreed base to UK politics for over a half century.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the current polls are correct, and Labour loses but by a Milibandesque rather than a Footlike proportion, then prima facie that would suggest that Mr Corbyn's incompetence has been overstated or that he has improved, and that he is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
quote:I don't think you can tell either way. There's a lot of clear blue (and red) water between Mrs. May and Mr. Corbyn. The election will tell us something about how much people prefer Mr. Corbyn to Mrs. May, or vice versa, but says very little about how they would rank some hypothetical Blairite or Brownite of reasonable competence against either.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that amounts to saying that Corbyn is taking the party in a worthwhile direction that deserves to be pursued.
quote:So it amounts to you being desperate enough to try and twist me using a slightly over-broad brush when talking about Owen Smith a year ago into a direct attack on Jo Cox? Ffs...
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Smith. My mistake. No link because the Ship's archives are rotten. Found it.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Still no link. And who is Jones?
I misremembered. You said 'ounce of conscience' not 'shred of conscience'.
quote:.. within a particular time frame as explicitly specified by the interviewer. I mean if we are bringing up things that happened in the early 80s you can dig up videos of Thatcher giving rousing speeches to the Mujahadin, presumably she didn't continue her support for them when they were seen as radicals a few years later.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In the interview transcript Mr Corbyn denies any involvement with the publication beyond being a reader and a contributor.
quote:'Slightly over-broad brush' - that's a weasel euphemism if I've ever heard one.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So it amounts to you being desperate enough to try and twist me using a slightly over-broad brush when talking about Owen Smith a year ago into a direct attack on Jo Cox? Ffs...
quote:You know what, if you want to accuse me of something, come out and say it. In hell if you need to. Otherwise explain why you feel the need to dig up and argue about a year old post. From what I recall a year after the fact, it didn't occur to me that Jo Cox was one of those who trotted obediently into the lobbies on the welfare vote. For all that she said and did some nice things I wouldn't have wanted her as Labour party leader either.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You picked a charge that applied to all or the majority of Corbyn's critics and you conveniently forgot or hoped we'd forget that Cox was one of them.
quote:Matt in the Telegraph is often on fire, but today particularly so.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
JC was really bad on Women's Hour (Radio 4) this morning. The failure on costs was embarrassing, and may well have done some real damage.
quote:Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
quote:The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed, and tbh, I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.
quote:As mentioned on BBC's The News Quiz, the 6p figure was based on the cost of a breakfast in the (heavily subsided) Houses of Parliament restaurants.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed, and tbh, I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.
quote:You could just about get a small bowl of off-brand cornflakes for that, or a couple of slices of cheap bread and marge.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I didn't see this level of fuss over the conservatives claim that a child's breakfast would cost 6p to provide.
quote:Swings and roundabouts. First time in years that mine have been.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:1) They were voting for a sitting leader rather than electing a new leader.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The 17% of the PLP who supported him is still higher than the number who nominated him and wanted him to win, so in terms of support from the PLP it's actually an improvement.
2) He got 16% at his original nomination, so 17% isn't a meaningful improvement.
3) If he can only get 17% of his party MPs to support him, that is by any stretch of the imagination an appalling result. Many of those were prepared to give him a go at the start. If he can't even get his MPs to support him, he's not going to cope with running the country.
quote:Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.
They hate him because, as a number of them have said outright, they'd prefer to see the tories in power than a left wing Labour government.
quote:The suicide rate has gone up for a reason.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
quote:Doublethink has already addressed the social care point.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:Hang on a minute. The Tory U-turn on social care was all about at what point someone pays for their existing care. No OAPs were ever going to die in the making, or unmaking, of this policy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The difference being that Tory social care (and other) policies are killing people. Whereas Trident is a massive investment that could be better spent stopping people from being killed, but is instead squandered on a system that no sane human being would ever use.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If the Tories did a U-turn on social care, Corbyn's driving with the handbrake on over Trident.
On the other hand, renewing Trident, paying masses and masses of money just to be able to kill innocent civilians, is Labour party policy. Muddleheaded is the new normal for them.
quote:Sadly I believe as far as spending on public services, the NHS, etc go, Labour's manifesto is somewhere to the right of Blair. The NHS costs have risen by about 4% a year since it was founded. Labour are promising 2% which is generous only by comparison with the Tories.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Swings and roundabouts. First time in years that mine have been.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Like them, my views aren't on the ballot paper this time round.
quote:The childcare policy has been costed in the manifesto. I don't see that politicians should be under an obligation to memorise every figure in their manifesto. I wouldn't want them trying to make those kinds of decisions without the actual figures in front of them.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Jeremy Corbyn seems unaware that his decision to unfreeze benefits hasn't been costed (at £3bn), and he doesn't seem to know how much his childcare policy will cost.
quote:A significant part of which in recent years has been down to decimation of social care. I don't think any of the parties are doing enough to reverse that and put in place resources to provide the best care for the elderly - which in almost all cases will not be in hospitals.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The NHS costs have risen by about 4% a year since it was founded. Labour are promising 2% which is generous only by comparison with the Tories.
quote:You dug up a slander - sorry, attack with a "slightly over-broad brush" from the year old leadership contest. As I said, I wasn't persuaded. Such attacks have all the credibility of a Tory election poster on Labour or a Daily Mail leader on Brexit.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Otherwise explain why you feel the need to dig up and argue about a year old post.
quote:The most recent polls (ie, today) show as follows:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sterling is on the slide in the financial markets this morning as a result of new polling showing that it could be a hung parliament on the 9th June....
Wonder how David Cameron is feeling at the moment?
quote:I can't be sure, but I doubt he's feeling much in the way of guilt or regret for having plunged the Country into a decade or more of chaos, confusion and economic slump. Nor will he be regretting his precipitous resignation; he'd probably been planning a lucrative post-No.10 career for some time, and must have realised that the 2015 election was the zenith of his political life.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sterling is on the slide in the financial markets this morning as a result of new polling showing that it could be a hung parliament on the 9th June....
Wonder how David Cameron is feeling at the moment?
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Cameron is of a type we see far too often in politics and in working life, a dilettante who moves serenely from disaster to catastrophe and who always gets the opportunity to cause more mayhem because he projects an aura of supreme self-confidence which takes in gullible recruiters and voters. This aura is derived from a misplaced conviction of his own brilliance, which it would never occur to him to question.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
ISTR he originally decided to be PM because he thought he'd 'be rather good at it'.quote:The Conservatives are putting home secretary Amber Rudd up. I'm surprised they haven't gone for Boris Johnson, who for all his buffoonery is a good performer, and is part of the Brexit team, which is of course what the Conservatives want the whole thing to be about.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Corbyn is doing the debate. So far, May is not. There is no good way to spin this for the Tories so far, so their only hope of not looking like May is running scared is for Corbyn to tank. Will be interesting.
quote:Good grief no! The last thing the Conservatives want is their lack of progress made clear to the electorate. They are playing a very low-key campaign for the very reason that they have done nothing and can do nothing.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:The Conservatives are putting home secretary Amber Rudd up. I'm surprised they haven't gone for Boris Johnson, who for all his buffoonery is a good performer, and is part of the Brexit team, which is of course what the Conservatives want the whole thing to be about.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Corbyn is doing the debate. So far, May is not. There is no good way to spin this for the Tories so far, so their only hope of not looking like May is running scared is for Corbyn to tank. Will be interesting.
quote:I'm wondering whether it might be. These tight polls will encourage Tory voters to actually go out and vote and if one is the sort of Labour voter who hates Corbyn I'm not sure how that view would've changed over the past weeks. Part of me still thinks that the Conservatives could win 50-55% of the vote next week.
Originally posted by Cod:
I can't see any alternative to a Tory win, however, unless the polls have once again underestimated Tory support, it won't be a landslide.
quote:It's a kind of anti-politics, depending on personal attacks and the supposed presidential allure of the leader. This has not worked at all, since May herself looks ill at ease and gauche, but still, I expect the Tories to win. What strange times we live in. Well, we got through he Thatcher years. More or less.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm waiting for serious attempts to show that the Tory proposals are any better than Labour's. Any bloody good at all TBH. So far, they aren't within a mile, when you hear of them.
It's a clear instance of "Keep politics out, keep the Tories in".
quote:We did, but we are all still paying the price
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, we got through he Thatcher years. More or less.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:That hasn't happened since 1931 when the Tories got 55%. There hasn't been a single poll this time showing the Tories approaching that figure, and polling companies factor in an extra "shy Tory" adjustment compared to 2015.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm wondering whether it might be. These tight polls will encourage Tory voters to actually go out and vote and if one is the sort of Labour voter who hates Corbyn I'm not sure how that view would've changed over the past weeks. Part of me still thinks that the Conservatives could win 50-55% of the vote next week.
Originally posted by Cod:
I can't see any alternative to a Tory win, however, unless the polls have once again underestimated Tory support, it won't be a landslide.
quote:Actually it would appear that suicide rates for the elderly have been going down for some time, independent of who is in charge (even Thatcher/Major Tories!). Anyway, our lot have ditched the policy.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The suicide rate has gone up for a reason.
And I absolutely guarantee you, that if their care change comes in, we will see some elderly people committing suicide because they worry about being a burden to their family. Just as there will be people who decline care they actually need.
quote:The thing is, either you decide that having a nuclear deterrent is essential in a desperately unstable world, and pay the price. Or, you decide there's much better things to spend it on, and don't.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is something I would agree with - the priority of a new government should be trying to get the UK out of the total mess the Tories have left us (eg: sort out a form of Brexit that won't wreck everything, invest in the NHS, schools, social care, public transport, affordable and social housing, etc) rather than waste money on a massive white elephant. That would still be the case even if I thought we needed a nuclear deterrent (which we don't need).
quote:I think you're missing the point.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed.
quote:I was not particularly interested in your point. You stated that it wasn't costed, it was. On the rest of your post - what Dafyd said.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
quote:I think you're missing the point.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The article you linked to states that it is in fact costed.
quote:Am I right in thinking that some, possibly many if not all, of the policies in the Tory manifesto are uncosted?
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If you're going to do a radio interview in a general election introducing a policy, you make sure you know how much it costs. It's just basic.
quote:Of course, nuclear weapons aren't a deterrent against any of the dangers of our unstable world anyway. The commitment by Labour to pay vast sums on a vanity project is a mistake. And, if Corbyn as PM manages to have the budget reallocated to the benefit of the people of the UK - and thus delaying implementation of the renewal of Trident by decades - then maybe common sense will prevail and we'll never renew the obscenity of Trident.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
The thing is, either you decide that having a nuclear deterrent is essential in a desperately unstable world, and pay the price. Or, you decide there's much better things to spend it on, and don't.
Labour have formally committed themselves to paying the massive price of having a deterrent, but because of what Corbyn has said, it's not any kind of deterrent, to anyone.
quote:Tory policy? I have only seen one and they haven't a clue what the costs, benefits or timescale will be. That policy is Brexit and one principle, "Strong and Stable", which looks a lot like inflexibility to me. That latter phrase will haunt Theresa May to the end of her days.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Am I right in thinking that some, possibly many if not all, of the policies in the Tory manifesto are uncosted?
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If you're going to do a radio interview in a general election introducing a policy, you make sure you know how much it costs. It's just basic.
quote:There are other policies. There's abolish free school lunches. There's introduce free school breakfasts, which will be a bargain at 6p per child apparently, with no idea as to uptake. There's requiring the elderly to pay for their own social care, up to whatever the cap is this news cycle. Nothing says Strong and Stable like U-Turning on your own manifesto within a day of bringing it out.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Tory policy? I have only seen one and they haven't a clue what the costs, benefits or timescale will be. That policy is Brexit and one principle, "Strong and Stable", which looks a lot like inflexibility to me.
quote:Guardian
Jeremy Corbyn seems to be paying far more attention to how many appearances on telly he’s doing. He ought to be paying a bit more attention to thinking about Brexit negotiations. That’s what I’m doing,
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the Tories made the mistake of believing their own propaganda about Corbyn.
quote:Bereavement reactions come in all sorts - if carrying on as if nothing had happened was how she wants to cope then fair enough. I'm very sorry for anyone who loses their father - it sucks.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Rudd's father had just died and she still came on TV. I had a twinge of sadness for her but, career person as I was, I would never have put my job so far ahead of my family and I do not admire her for it
quote:I received our local Tory candidate's election letter today. Nothing about free school lunches, nothing about requiring the elderly to pay for their own care (which many do anyway). In fact all there was, was
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:There are other policies. There's abolish free school lunches. There's introduce free school breakfasts, which will be a bargain at 6p per child apparently, with no idea as to uptake. There's requiring the elderly to pay for their own social care, up to whatever the cap is this news cycle. Nothing says Strong and Stable like U-Turning on your own manifesto within a day of bringing it out.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Tory policy? I have only seen one and they haven't a clue what the costs, benefits or timescale will be. That policy is Brexit and one principle, "Strong and Stable", which looks a lot like inflexibility to me.
quote:Furthermore by the time the Brexit negotiations start, the current government would have prevaricated about other matters for nearly a year.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I can fully agree that the Brexit negotiations are important and she shouldn't be distracted from them by a general election. It's bad timing really. What fool called a general election when they knew the Brexit negotiations were about to start?
quote:It is indeed. I've been tinkering with the idea of preparing two social media cover pics. One of fireworks and balloons, and one of a long, dark tunnel. Most likely though, if Labour doesn't win I will be in too dark a tunnel myself to even bother with social media cover pics.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
YouGov poll (taken before tonight's debate) has Conservative lead down to 3%.
I'm not one for trusting polls, and I've got a bottle of whisky on standby, but... hope is a terrible, terrible thing.
quote:I drank all that last year for the referendum, unfortunately. I did get a bottle of Jack Daniels for Christmas, and that will suffice to induce oblivion.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Doc Tor's standby bottle of whisky (a good single malt, I trust) will be useful for either (a) celebrating, or (b) inducing oblivion.
A Good Idea, therefore, and I shall go out and purchase one for myself before next Thursday.
IJ
)
quote:Start off on the good stuff, then move on to the JDs, if required.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
O dear. Well, if oblivion is required (and I fear it may be), then better by means of Jack Daniels than a decent Scotch!
IJ
quote:On current showing I think it's more likely the 1922 committee are lining her up to be PM.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Rumour says that Amber Rudd is being lined up to replace Phil Hammond as Chancellor in the event of a Tory victory.
What an excellent choice. I can think of no better paragon of probity to manage the nation's finances.
quote:Yesterday Theresa May was campaigning in a seat that has a 12,000 Labour majority. So either the pollsters are very wrong or she's very wrong. We'll see...
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'll probably get up early in the morning of 9th June, fearing the worst, but I may have the pleasant surprise of learning that Maggie Maybe has not won by a large majority. IMHO, that's the best-to-be-hoped-for scenario.
quote:A lot of folk say it's a paper that isn't what it used to be, don't they?
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Interesting how The Economist (to which I subscribe on the basis of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer) after flaying both Corbyn and May offers a limp lettuce leaf of support to the Liberal Democrats. I doubt the average Briton even knows the newspaper exists.
quote:If this time next week we find ourselves with a Tory government without a substantial majority, or even a minority government propped up by N.Ireland Unionists, then Mrs May will be anything but strong and stable. Any bets on that result leading to another Tory leadership contest? Another delay in starting the Brexit negotiations ... might as well withdraw our article 50 notification and wait until we have a strong and stable government with a clear vision for Brexit with the support of the British people.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:On current showing I think it's more likely the 1922 committee are lining her up to be PM.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Rumour says that Amber Rudd is being lined up to replace Phil Hammond as Chancellor in the event of a Tory victory.
What an excellent choice. I can think of no better paragon of probity to manage the nation's finances.
quote:If this is any guide to her answering technique, or this, I can see why she would.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Owen Jones is reporting that a BBC journalist has contacted him to tell him that, in addition to withdrawing from her woman's hour interview - May is now declining to be interviewed by the BBC regional political editors and the local radio networks (refusing to do even a pooled interview).
quote:It isn't what it used to be, but otoh it was never what people think it was.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:A lot of folk say it's a paper that isn't what it used to be, don't they?
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Interesting how The Economist (to which I subscribe on the basis of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer)
quote:They call themselves a newspaper.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And even fewer know it's a magazine?
quote:The problem is that it's the kind of obtruse charge that is hard to explain in simple sound bites and you are still dependent on the mainly right-wing press to run with it. I assume they'll complicate it and make the charge that everyone was doing it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This is obviously a terrible look for the Conservative party so close to the GE.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:On current showing I think it's more likely the 1922 committee are lining her up to be PM.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Rumour says that Amber Rudd is being lined up to replace Phil Hammond as Chancellor in the event of a Tory victory.
What an excellent choice. I can think of no better paragon of probity to manage the nation's finances.
Assuming this isn't just idle speculation among journalists desperate for an angle - what on earth is the logic behind this?quote:That's it! He expressions simply do not look genuine - rather like Trump, she pulls her face into various positions 'smile' 'sympathy' etc but none of it rings true.
May increasingly comes across as spineless, timorous, robotic and pre-fabricated by the Tory electoral machine. Every smile and every expression of concern seems feigned, and she goes to great lengths to avoid accountability to the British people. She is no patriot and is the antithesis of what this county deserves as a leader
quote:In which case the new leader will face exactly the same problems of legitimacy that May allegedly did before calling the election.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Still expecting a Tory win, but not a landslide. May to resign for health reasons in a year or two, Heaven knows who we'll get then.
quote:My guess is that since most Commons votes don't involve every MP (and in fact the chamber is too small to accommodate all of them), then the hassle of making pacts with parties with only single-digit numbers of seats is probably not worth the extra votes you would gain.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Whether or not it is likely, suppose there is a hung parliament and the Tories aren't able to pass a confidence vote with NI Unionists and/or (gasp!) UKIP (if UKIP even gets a seat). What kind of agreements are possible in such a situation, and which would be likely? All the "progressive" parties might be terrified of being punished like the LibDems were for supporting the Tories, but might one or more of them prop up a Tory minority government, maybe with a different PM, given the right price exacted from the Tories on Brexit, devolution, or something else? Is a Labour minority government with the support of a motley crew of other parties really possible, even if Corbyn lets someone else be PM? Or would there just be another election?
quote:I have absolutely no idea why people are so antipathetic to this idea - the mere thought of Sturgeon seems to make otherwise level-headed people come out in hives.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Labour-SNP agreement that totally isn't a pact, oh no sir.
quote:That seems to imply that Cameron wasn't weird/bizarre in some way.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Not to mention that it looks increasingly true that once you got past Cameron, you ran out of senior Tories that aren't weird/bizarre in some way.
quote:It's an arrangement that makes some sense. A fair chunk of the Labour manifesto is already in place in Scotland (eg: no university tuition fees) or consistent with the SNP manifesto. There would, of course, be a price from the SNP to pay for such an arrangement - there would need to be a recognition of the powers of the Scottish Government in relation to Scottish affairs (in particular about calling a referendum on independence), and there may also need to be a concession on any renewal of Trident including developing an operational base somewhere not in Scotland.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I have absolutely no idea why people are so antipathetic to this idea - the mere thought of Sturgeon seems to make otherwise level-headed people come out in hives.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Labour-SNP agreement that totally isn't a pact, oh no sir.
quote:I agree. I have never met any in real life though (because obviously my pool of acquaintances is totally representative of British life) and I do wonder if someone pulled an exceptionally skewed focus group.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I have absolutely no idea why people are so antipathetic to this idea - the mere thought of Sturgeon seems to make otherwise level-headed people come out in hives.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Labour-SNP agreement that totally isn't a pact, oh no sir.
quote:While ignoring the fact that a Tory government was talking, nay negotiating, with the Sinn Fein leadership too.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Politics sometimes makes for strange behaviour. There are some people for which the Union is so important that they would vote anyone ahead of the SNP. And, there's the "Rangers Effect" which has solid Scottish Labour voters switching to the Tories because Corbyn once talked to Sinn Fein.
quote:Wait. You're blaming Corbyn for losing the sectarian Orange Order types? If pandering to them is what's needed then the seats aren't worth the price.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, Tories have never suggested support for a united Ireland (though, their push for Brexit at any cost is quite likely to lead to that result). Corbyn has, reportedly, and consequently lost support in parts of Glasgow that should be solid Labour.
quote:I can see that playing out in Scotland but I thought the focus groups that so frightened Mr Miliband in 2015 were of English Labour voters who were scared of the SNP. I might be misremembering.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Politics sometimes makes for strange behaviour. There are some people for which the Union is so important that they would vote anyone ahead of the SNP. And, there's the "Rangers Effect" which has solid Scottish Labour voters switching to the Tories because Corbyn once talked to Sinn Fein.
quote:"Conservative and Unionist Party". Unionism is right in the tory DNA. Plenty of pro-independence folk, like me, will vote Labour. I can't imagine many will vote tory.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You would need to explain why a reaction to the SNP would push people to the Tories rather than equally anti-Independence Labour. If the only question was IndyRef2 there was no reason why that should be a Tory gain, unless there was also a good reason to desert Labour.
quote:Looking at May 6 words come to mind: 'Don't you think she looks tired.'
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Still expecting a Tory win, but not a landslide. May to resign for health reasons in a year or two, Heaven knows who we'll get then.
quote:Not especially. What are you suggesting?
Originally posted by ACK:
quote:Looking at May 6 words come to mind: 'Don't you think she looks tired.'
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Still expecting a Tory win, but not a landslide. May to resign for health reasons in a year or two, Heaven knows who we'll get then.
quote:Thanks.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They're alluding to this.
quote:The problem with this apparent collapse in the Tory lead is that, so far as I'm aware, it hasn't been reflected in the experiences of Labour or Tory campaigners. You'd expect such a big swing to Labour to be noticeable from canvass returns, etc. but it doesn't seem to be the case.
In other news, you can pick your poll results tonight, with anything from a ComRes lead of 12 points for the Tories, to a Survation lead of just 1.
quote:Got your hands on the canvass returns have you? Do give us some details, I'm struggling to find anything.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Thanks.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They're alluding to this.
quote:The problem with this apparent collapse in the Tory lead is that, so far as I'm aware, it hasn't been reflected in the experiences of Labour or Tory campaigners. You'd expect such a big swing to Labour to be noticeable from canvass returns, etc. but it doesn't seem to be the case.
In other news, you can pick your poll results tonight, with anything from a ComRes lead of 12 points for the Tories, to a Survation lead of just 1.
I don't want to disappoint you chaps too much, but I don't think this shift is actually happening.
quote:Unless you're in Ian Murray's seat, or a very safe SNP seat, in which case have at it, that unfortunately could help the Tories. Scottish Labour are not like UK Labour, their leaders mostly hate Jeremy Corbyn and they're even running paper candidates where they hope the Tories can beat the SNP which will assist the Tories.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:"Conservative and Unionist Party". Unionism is right in the tory DNA. Plenty of pro-independence folk, like me, will vote Labour. I can't imagine many will vote tory.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You would need to explain why a reaction to the SNP would push people to the Tories rather than equally anti-Independence Labour. If the only question was IndyRef2 there was no reason why that should be a Tory gain, unless there was also a good reason to desert Labour.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Got your hands on the canvass returns have you?
quote:The Guido Fawkes blog has mentioned this.
Do give us some details, I'm struggling to find anything.
quote:That's a matter of framing, isn't it? You could equally well say that they're running paper candidates where they don't want the Tories to beat the SNP.
Originally posted by Louise:
Scottish Labour are not like UK Labour, their leaders mostly hate Jeremy Corbyn and they're even running paper candidates where they hope the Tories can beat the SNP which will assist the Tories.
quote:Speaking as a canvasser, I think it's difficult to tell because most people are terribly polite. I suspect that many don't say, won't say are voting against - and many who don't respond when you knock on the door just don't want to talk to you, rather than actually being out. So the responses you do get show significant bias.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Got your hands on the canvass returns have you?
Only my own, obvs. And they're submitted so that they can be inputted.
quote:The Guido Fawkes blog has mentioned this.
Do give us some details, I'm struggling to find anything.
quote:I can't really disagree with that. On an individual level. But political parties, both nationally and in a particular constituency, will be able to get a feel for how things are going based on the responses coming in. Those responses don't appear to reflect the narrowing in the polls.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Speaking as a canvasser, I think it's difficult to tell because most people are terribly polite. I suspect that many don't say, won't say are voting against - and many who don't respond when you knock on the door just don't want to talk to you, rather than actually being out. So the responses you do get show significant bias.
quote:And by doing so Ukip will connect with the pitchfork army in the same way that they did over Brexit.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So main parties are suspending campaigning for one day. UKIP on the other hand are carrying on.
quote:Do you think that there can be a sea change of opinion, so great that it cuts a significant Tory lead to almost level-pegging, that can occur without the campaign teams of either major party noticing?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Flawed as polls are, they are at least based on quantified data, so I'll trust them over the subjective feelings of canvassers, tbh.
quote:In a universe where Marvin's talking about possibly voting Labour? Yes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Do you think that there can be a sea change of opinion, so great that it cuts a significant Tory lead to almost level-pegging, that can occur without the campaign teams of either major party noticing?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Flawed as polls are, they are at least based on quantified data, so I'll trust them over the subjective feelings of canvassers, tbh.
quote:You seem to be reading rather a lot into your own personal experience in a specific constituency and the claims of a right-wing blog reporting unnamed sources.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Do you think that there can be a sea change of opinion, so great that it cuts a significant Tory lead to almost level-pegging, that can occur without the campaign teams of either major party noticing?
quote:Yes, I think this just shows that the situation is incredibly hard to predict. But then the best polls say as much and include a wide margin of error.
The Saturday night polls show Tory leads of between 1% and 12% so I guess at the moment you can pick whatever poll suits your preferred narrative.
quote:It's very difficult for a ruling party seeking re-election to make too much hay over this, because all this shit is going down on their watch.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I hope this is not crass, I will apologise if it is or if any are offended, but do terror attacks favour the Tories? Are they seen as "tough" in comparison to Labour? Will some people seek assurance/comfort in a conservative government?
quote:My understanding is that the polls are finding the same things. The differences are all about different methodologies used to correct for problems with polls last UK general election. The young politically engaged were much more likely to answer polls. But many of them didn't vote in the end.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I would like to know about the polls, is are they finding similar raw data but ,asking different assumptions - in which case the results hang on the difference in turn out rate between the old and young - or whether their raw data is substantially different which would suggest volatile electoral mood or problems with sampling.
quote:He can process it perfectly well. He can process that criticising the mayor will play very well with his base, and I'm sure it does. That is all he cares about. IME His tweets on the latest attacks have been cunning, not dumb.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's quite likely that Trump cannot cognitively process the idea of a Muslim mayor in London.
quote:Going back to the time when the British government encouraged British-Libyan exiles to go to Libya to finish off Gaddafi?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hot news - PM makes fierce criticism of previous efforts to control extremism and terrorism. Really, whoever was in charge of this in the last few years has done a shit job, she implied.
Will she call on them to resign?
quote:On shoot-to-kill, it appears he has. He's previously expressed doubts about a shoot-to-kill policy (the video of which went viral over the weekend) and now Mr Corbyn has tried to find a form of words to skate over the issue.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So it's not like he'd just come up with this stuff *after* the terrorist attacks.
quote:Haven't seen the video.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:On shoot-to-kill, it appears he has. He's previously expressed doubts about a shoot-to-kill policy (the video of which went viral over the weekend) and now Mr Corbyn has tried to find a form of words to skate over the issue.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So it's not like he'd just come up with this stuff *after* the terrorist attacks.
quote:It really doesn't, unless you believe Kussenberg asked the question she said she asked but which she didn't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
On shoot-to-kill, it appears he has.
quote:There you go.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not sure what, specifically, you're referring to...?
quote:I see the fact that the video in question was investigated by the BBC Trust and found to misrepresent Corbyn's views passed you by.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:On shoot-to-kill, it appears he has. He's previously expressed doubts about a shoot-to-kill policy (the video of which went viral over the weekend) and now Mr Corbyn has tried to find a form of words to skate over the issue.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So it's not like he'd just come up with this stuff *after* the terrorist attacks.
quote:I believe this is the report of the BBC Trusts investigation of an interview on BBC TV and here it is on the BBC Website.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:I see the fact that the video in question was investigated by the BBC Trust and found to misrepresent Corbyn's views passed you by.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:On shoot-to-kill, it appears he has. He's previously expressed doubts about a shoot-to-kill policy (the video of which went viral over the weekend) and now Mr Corbyn has tried to find a form of words to skate over the issue.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So it's not like he'd just come up with this stuff *after* the terrorist attacks.
quote:Yes. Chi Onwurah (Newcastle Central MP-to-be?) took this, and this, and this.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Are you talking about the Gateshead rally ? (It was covered v briefly on the live election campaign feed - but no crowd shots.)
quote:I see you!
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Yes. Chi Onwurah (Newcastle Central MP-to-be?) took this, and this, and this.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Are you talking about the Gateshead rally ? (It was covered v briefly on the live election campaign feed - but no crowd shots.)
(I'm actually in the second: I spotted myself in the middle distance).
quote:Only, I think, if you're expecting a Labour victory.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Mainly young people - are we in for a big surprise?
quote:I'm happy to take your place. I am in one of the safest Labour seats and I hope he gets back in but I can afford to vote Green as a protest against FPTP.
Originally posted by Boogie:
..... I usually vote Green, but it will be Labour this time - too much rides on the result.
quote:I'm still torn about whether I can bring myself to do it....
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes - I usually vote LibDem, but I may vote Labour this time.
quote:Yes, had already assumed it was just a purely political point you were making, and you didn't actually care about the underlying issues.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There we are.
quote:For me, I'm a member of the Green Party for a variety of reasons - and, environmental issues isn't top of the list (it's probably the area I least agree with Green policy - there aren't many Greens in favour of nuclear power, even if I have concerns about some aspects of the current UK new build programme).
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm surprised at how strong support for the Greens seems to be among politically vocal people on the Ship. Do people support the Greens over Labour and the LibDems merely because of dislike of Corbyn and anger over the 2010 Con-LibDem coalition? Or is it because the Greens are more of a consistently left wing party in general than modern Labour and the LibDems? Or is it because of environmentalism or some other issue?
quote:This is correct and very well explained, but to add a couple of points:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:My understanding is that the polls are finding the same things. The differences are all about different methodologies used to correct for problems with polls last UK general election. The young politically engaged were much more likely to answer polls. But many of them didn't vote in the end.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I would like to know about the polls, is are they finding similar raw data but ,asking different assumptions...sampling.
Some polls address this by asking how likely they are to vote and then adjust accordingly. Others regards that as still likely to overestimate the youth vote so they correct for demography. These pollsters are banking that the likelihood they will vote will be more accurately reflected by age etc than by whether they claim they will vote.
Having said that they are all are counting on Corbyn having energised the young vote to some degree - the question is how much.
quote:I suspect the damage is done. Changing your Shadow Home Secretary the day before polling day looks weak and, even if Abbott is off the scene for a bit, Corbyn is still responsible for appointing her in the first place.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Abbott is stepping down for an indefinite period for health reasons. Fairly or unfairly she hasn't had a good election campaign. I wonder whether it will affect the voting?
quote:Not supporting her but trying to be fair. We don't know what her ill health is, do we? So how can we jump to conclusions about Corbyn's weakness or otherwise?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I suspect the damage is done. Changing your Shadow Home Secretary the day before polling day looks weak and, even if Abbott is off the scene for a bit, Corbyn is still responsible for appointing her in the first place.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Abbott is stepping down for an indefinite period for health reasons. Fairly or unfairly she hasn't had a good election campaign. I wonder whether it will affect the voting?
quote:I'm not a Diane Abbot fan but her recent performances suggest she is not a well woman, and for that deserves our sympathies. Social media has made political life a duck shoot and anyone under par is fair game.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I'm sure many of us have seen a work colleague's performance become increasingly erratic, provoking much dark muttering and eye-rolling, only for that colleague to retire early or go on long-term sick leave. It's nobody's fault, and only a heartless scoundrel would try to make political capital out of it.
quote:Mrs. May has managed to be gracious about it, saying
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I'm sure many of us have seen a work colleague's performance become increasingly erratic, provoking much dark muttering and eye-rolling, only for that colleague to retire early or go on long-term sick leave. It's nobody's fault, and only a heartless scoundrel would try to make political capital out of it.
quote:And who can we hold responsible for the unending torrent of death threats, racist slurs and sexist taunts directed at her?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I suspect the damage is done. Changing your Shadow Home Secretary the day before polling day looks weak and, even if Abbott is off the scene for a bit, Corbyn is still responsible for appointing her in the first place.
quote:Or perhaps she is doing another of her famous U-turns. Certainly she has been contributing to the dog-pile in the not-too-distant past: see here.
Mrs. May has managed to be gracious about it...
quote:I know Woolas got done for this kind of thing, but it seems to me if you pulled them up for things that they said, "live" during a campaign, very few of them would remain in their seats...
Originally posted by Jane R:
lowlands_boy:quote:Or perhaps she is doing another of her famous U-turns. Certainly she has been contributing to the dog-pile in the not-too-distant past: see here.
Mrs. May has managed to be gracious about it...
It would certainly be... interesting... if she won the election and then had to step down because of this.
quote:The people making such comments, presumably?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And who can we hold responsible for the unending torrent of death threats, racist slurs and sexist taunts directed at her?
quote:I agree, though could possibly be as low as 80.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think Tory majority of more than 100.
quote:Don't quite agree.
In other news: we're screwed.
quote:If we are poor, sick, jobless or old, we'll be screwed soon enough.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I agree, though could possibly be as low as 80.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think Tory majority of more than 100.
quote:Don't quite agree.
In other news: we're screwed.
quote:And you can blame the Labour Party and its selection of Corbyn for that. With a good, strong leader (and ignoring any effect a strongly Remain Labour leader would have had in the referendum) the most the Tories could reasonably have assumed was being in power until 2020. The chances of a revived Labour Party then coming back into power would have been pretty strong and the Tory damage in the short interval minimal. Now there'll almost certainly be another 5 years to dismantle the system to which you refer. Perhaps some Labour in-fighting will lead to an even longer period in opposition.
Originally posted by Penny S:
It can't. The sort of people who are going to vote for the loss of the Britain we grew up, where people were cared for are not the sort to listen to the still small voice on the way into the polling station. They didn't hear in the referendum, or in the presidential election in the US, and they are very, very unlikely to hear tomorrow.
quote:We'll never know what might have been without the deliberate sabotage of Labour's chances from the right of the party. In any case, odds are that Corbyn will get a larger share of the vote than any Labour leader since 2001. The seat count may suffer due to the collapse of UKIP.
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think Corbyn has had a better than expected campaign and I have even warmed to him - though not his core supporters.
The Tories have been shockingly poor. They have u-turned all over the place.
We are now at the point in a second term Government when the party in power are at their most unpopular - losing by-elections, local council elections and bottom lining in the opinion polls.
Perhaps even more important most people haven't seen an improvement in their living standards in roughly a decade.
Considering all that - if Labour loses by 50 seats or more, surely those who said he was unelectable were broadly speaking right.
quote:True - but it is interesting to me that it is his supporters who have banged on most about how he doesn't even have the support of his party. This is to sell his anti-establishment credentials. They think it is his USP!
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:We'll never know what might have been without the deliberate sabotage of Labour's chances from the right of the party. In any case, odds are that Corbyn will get a larger share of the vote than any Labour leader since 2001. The seat count may suffer due to the collapse of UKIP.
Originally posted by Luigi:
I think Corbyn has had a better than expected campaign and I have even warmed to him - though not his core supporters.
The Tories have been shockingly poor. They have u-turned all over the place.
We are now at the point in a second term Government when the party in power are at their most unpopular - losing by-elections, local council elections and bottom lining in the opinion polls.
Perhaps even more important most people haven't seen an improvement in their living standards in roughly a decade.
Considering all that - if Labour loses by 50 seats or more, surely those who said he was unelectable were broadly speaking right.
quote:It will be interesting to see whether Corbyn and his followers will accept such a result, or look around trying to blame others.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the Tories win big with that manifesto and that campaign then I think it is fair to say that Labour and Corbyn are failures.
quote:It would be failure. May called it to significantly increase her majority. She did it because she was so far ahead in the opinion polls. Governments aren't normally in such a strong position mid term and don't have an excuse like Brexit to call it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It will be interesting to see whether Corbyn and his followers will accept such a result, or look around trying to blame others.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the Tories win big with that manifesto and that campaign then I think it is fair to say that Labour and Corbyn are failures.
It's also interesting how much the political landscape has changed over two years. In 2015, before the election, many Conservatives thought an outright win was impossible. When Cameron came home with a 12-seat majority, people were amazed. It was the thing that couldn't be done. Now, anything less than a 50-seat majority will be considered a failure. Extraordinary.
quote:Hung parliament is entirely plausible - what I hope for in many ways. A 20 plus Labour majority and the polls will have lost all credibility.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Of course, it is just possible Corbyn could emulate Cameron.
Nate Silver has this on the odds.
quote:I note that several newspapers have told people commenting below articles today that making posts describing how one has voted would be in violation of this.
Prohibition on publication of exit polls.
(1)No person shall, in the case of an election to which this section applies, publish before the poll is closed—
(a)any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted
quote:I thought that was quite interesting analysis, although I suspect that there are several groups who could decide this election rather than just the youth vote.
Originally posted by Luigi:
Hung parliament is entirely plausible - what I hope for in many ways. A 20 plus Labour majority and the polls will have lost all credibility.
quote:May was 20 points clear when she called it. It's now all over the shop and most likely down to single figures.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's also interesting how much the political landscape has changed over two years. In 2015, before the election, many Conservatives thought an outright win was impossible. When Cameron came home with a 12-seat majority, people were amazed. It was the thing that couldn't be done. Now, anything less than a 50-seat majority will be considered a failure. Extraordinary.
quote:Well you should. Tory policies are killing vulnerable people now. Why should that change if they get back in. Please, for God's sake, stop voting to kill my friends.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I agree, though could possibly be as low as 80.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think Tory majority of more than 100.
quote:Don't quite agree.
In other news: we're screwed.
quote:When Jesus came to Birmingham, they simply passed him by.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tory policies are killing vulnerable people now. Why should that change if they get back in. Please, for God's sake, stop voting to kill my friends.
quote:Thank you. What an amazing woman. I will still laugh at her gaffes, though; unless illness was the reason.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Read this.
quote:That reminds me of generals who stand at the back shouting, forwards. Who exactly is this good strong leader? The Blairites are washed up, so we will await a new generation. I suppose Starmer is the coming thing - tie me down, the excitement is overwhelming.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:And you can blame the Labour Party and its selection of Corbyn for that. With a good, strong leader (and ignoring any effect a strongly Remain Labour leader would have had in the referendum) the most the Tories could reasonably have assumed was being in power until 2020. The chances of a revived Labour Party then coming back into power would have been pretty strong and the Tory damage in the short interval minimal. Now there'll almost certainly be another 5 years to dismantle the system to which you refer. Perhaps some Labour in-fighting will lead to an even longer period in opposition.
Originally posted by Penny S:
It can't. The sort of people who are going to vote for the loss of the Britain we grew up, where people were cared for are not the sort to listen to the still small voice on the way into the polling station. They didn't hear in the referendum, or in the presidential election in the US, and they are very, very unlikely to hear tomorrow.
quote:It will be fascinating to see what all the Corbyn haters amongst the parliamentary party do if he gets as far as a hung parliament or maybe even wins. So perhaps discussion should wait until after the results.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That reminds me of generals who stand at the back shouting, forwards. Who exactly is this good strong leader? The Blairites are washed up, so we will await a new generation. I suppose Starmer is the coming thing - tie me down, the excitement is overwhelming.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:And you can blame the Labour Party and its selection of Corbyn for that. With a good, strong leader (and ignoring any effect a strongly Remain Labour leader would have had in the referendum) the most the Tories could reasonably have assumed was being in power until 2020. The chances of a revived Labour Party then coming back into power would have been pretty strong and the Tory damage in the short interval minimal. Now there'll almost certainly be another 5 years to dismantle the system to which you refer. Perhaps some Labour in-fighting will lead to an even longer period in opposition.
Originally posted by Penny S:
It can't. The sort of people who are going to vote for the loss of the Britain we grew up, where people were cared for are not the sort to listen to the still small voice on the way into the polling station. They didn't hear in the referendum, or in the presidential election in the US, and they are very, very unlikely to hear tomorrow.
quote:My wife voted very early, and I voted about 10:30. I reckon we could both go back later and vote again with our offspring's polling cards. Two out of three ain't bad....
Originally posted by Gee D:
David Milliband would have been a much better choice IMHO.
Now all of you off and vote. Remember the adage: Vote early, vote often and vote for the dead.
quote:Wait until the day shift at the polling have knocked off
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:My wife voted very early, and I voted about 10:30. I reckon we could both go back later and vote again with our offspring's polling cards. Two out of three ain't bad....
Originally posted by Gee D:
David Milliband would have been a much better choice IMHO.
Now all of you off and vote. Remember the adage: Vote early, vote often and vote for the dead.
quote:Possibly. Subsequent events don't seem to indicate that David Milliband had much of an appetite for leadership - he left parliament shortly after, after all. One interpretation would be that he was happy to run as long as he thought he could win fairly easily - he could well have stayed on in politics, he chose not to.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think the leader should have been David Milliband, rather than his brother. I think he would have stuffed Cameron in 2015, then we wouldn't have had Brexit, and we wouldn't be having another one now....
quote:I'm always surprised that we don't have to produce ID to be able to vote.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
My wife voted very early, and I voted about 10:30. I reckon we could both go back later and vote again with our offspring's polling cards. Two out of three ain't bad....
quote:The trouble with the Blairites, generally, that with the exception of The Master, himself, and the excellent Liz Kendall they have no talent for dealing with adversity. In the parallel universe in which David Miliband won the Labour Leadership, Ed would have served loyally in the Shadow Cabinet rather than briefing any journalist who would listen about how hurt he was before buggering off to a high paid job in the States. Ed had a bucket of ess-aitch-one-tee poured over him on a daily basis as Labour leader and it's unlikely that David would have been treated differently by the press. I doubt that he would have comported himself with the resilience and good humour that Ed showed.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Possibly. Subsequent events don't seem to indicate that David Milliband had much of an appetite for leadership - he left parliament shortly after, after all. One interpretation would be that he was happy to run as long as he thought he could win fairly easily - he could well have stayed on in politics, he chose not to.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I think the leader should have been David Milliband, rather than his brother. I think he would have stuffed Cameron in 2015, then we wouldn't have had Brexit, and we wouldn't be having another one now....
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:And, yet, there is virtually no evidence that any voter fraud actually takes place. Instigating a national id scheme simply to prevent electoral fraud that isn't happening is a severe overkill, not to mention very expensive. Introducing an id scheme to help reduce financial fraud through identity theft has more legs to it, but that's balanced by the fact that if a criminal gets hold of such id they would be able to do even more mayhem.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think we most certainly *should* have to produce ID in order to vote. The system at the moment is wide open to fraud as far as I can see.
quote:We had 26 people with the same name registered at one address in Reading about 5 years ago. There was a prosecution but I don't know the result. Certainly in my home Country of Northern Ireland - home of Gerrymandering - the catch phrase was Vote Early, Vote often. Dead People still on the Electoral Register had their 'votes' cast for them. It was widely reported in Worthing that Care Managers used to fill in all the Postal Ballots for their choice of candidate. But prevention of course is better than cure.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, yet, there is virtually no evidence that any voter fraud actually takes place. Instigating a national id scheme simply to prevent electoral fraud that isn't happening is a severe overkill, not to mention very expensive. Introducing an id scheme to help reduce financial fraud through identity theft has more legs to it, but that's balanced by the fact that if a criminal gets hold of such id they would be able to do even more mayhem.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think we most certainly *should* have to produce ID in order to vote. The system at the moment is wide open to fraud as far as I can see.
quote:Well, in that case, it is Venusians who mostly vote.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Problem is that just because there isn't evidence doesn't mean it isn't happening.
quote:I am!!
Originally posted by Sarasa:
If she gets a big majority though I'm not going to be happy.
quote:It feels like they're sailing close to the wind, but I think they're talking about polls taken before today. If they were talking about polls of people who had already voted today, that appears to me to be against the law.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't the Guardian being a bit quick off the mark giving an assessment of the result on the day of the poll before the polls close?
quote:That would certainly be illegal in France in either case.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't the Guardian being a bit quick off the mark giving an assessment of the result on the day of the poll before the polls close?
quote:Yep - I think that is because instead of guessing who is going to vote. They are asking people who have voted. I guess I am stating the bleeding obvious here!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The "proper" exit polls are usually super accurate, so we'll be getting a pretty good idea of the result soon after the polls close at 10.
quote:Mostly it is because they're done by statisticians using models which have proved in the past to be very accurate. See here.
Originally posted by Luigi:
Yep - I think that is because instead of guessing who is going to vote. They are asking people who have voted. I guess I am stating the bleeding obvious here!
Personally I'd like the French system so that you pretty much know the result well before you go to bed.
quote:Exactly as the Conservatives kept telling people to be scared of. Sturgeon will be thrilled to bits if that happens...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes.. but if Labour, SNP and LDs go into coalition, it looks like the Tories are out.
quote:No election fraud, at all
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
We had 26 people with the same name registered at one address in Reading about 5 years ago. There was a prosecution but I don't know the result. Certainly in my home Country of Northern Ireland - home of Gerrymandering - the catch phrase was Vote Early, Vote often. Dead People still on the Electoral Register had their 'votes' cast for them. It was widely reported in Worthing that Care Managers used to fill in all the Postal Ballots for their choice of candidate. But prevention of course is better than cure.
quote:I thought Survation had it closest, but haven't really followed the individual polls for the last few days. Just saw some tweets from Survation last night.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Sitting in a group of somewhat stunned Labour activists. This appears to show yougov was right ...
quote:I'm not so sure. It's easier to support Brexit from a distance when they're not actively involved in supporting the government that is doing it. A bit trickier when they have to explain to constituents why they're risking the peace on such a crazy idea that they're actively supporting.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It is for the Unionists! Like everything else in NI, Brexit broke down along sectarian lines. Unionists voted Leave. Nationalists voted Remain. So the Unionists would love to support a Conservative Brexit.
quote:Conversely Labour were 11% up in the first conservative hold. The results are all over the place.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
First two results from Newcastle and Sunderland suggest Conservatives have done better than the exit poll, and Labour worse. Now flannelling over the impact of Brexit and where the UKIP vote has gone...
quote:On the grounds that the Tories will implement Brexit, I expect most UKIP votes to go there. Any UKIP votes that go anywhere else must be counted a loss the Theresa May.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
First two results from Newcastle and Sunderland suggest Conservatives have done better than the exit poll, and Labour worse. Now flannelling over the impact of Brexit and where the UKIP vote has gone...
quote:Yup, i think he's right
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of my younger work colleagues said something interesting today. He is 28 and really enthusiastic about this election and Jeremy Corbyn because he is the first "proper Labour PM" he can remember. He can only remember Tony Blair and his successors - aged 8 or 9 in 1997. He (and my daughter, of a similar age) have both joined the Labour Party following Jeremy Corbyn standing for the Labour Party leadership.
quote:Looks like your prayers have "availed much"!
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I'm just praying for a miracle.
quote:Yep. I suggested they might be several pages back.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Checking in while at work...
Could the polls be wrong? Again?
quote:I do hope so, but there seems so much money invested in polls I wonder who will be first insider to admit the emperor has no clothes? I think they can be useful, but the live-and-die-by-them mentality, or the belief we are all honest when polled [and I'm yet to be polled once], is troubling.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
People will eventually resist the posivist wet dream that attempts to reduce us all to numbers. They did in the US in 2016, to our chagrin. This time, it looks like a happy thing.
quote:Conservatives + DUP look to have an overall majority over a progressive coalition of the other parties. Plus 6 or 7 Sinn Fein MP's always abstain.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Bookies now have Corbyn favourite to be prime minister.
quote:Elmo from Sesame Street.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I do like Lord Buckethead. And who is that red creature at Theresa May's constituency's count?
quote:One or the other. DUP will want concessions on Brexit. Probably the single market solution, given the border with Eire. If the Tories can't find a way of fudging that or agreeing to that, the odds are strongly in favour of another election this year.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are we looking at a minority Conservative government propped up by the DUP? Possibly a full-blown coalition?
quote:I think one has to read the result of this election as at least a modest rejection of the "Hard Brexit at any cost" anti-strategy currently being offered by the Tories.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One or the other. DUP will want concessions on Brexit.
quote:I've been asleep but I think this is wrong, sadly.
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Sexist scumbag, Philip Davies, has lost Shipley. A pleasing result.
quote:Yes, the result looks to me like effectively a second Brexit referendum.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I think one has to read the result of this election as at least a modest rejection of the "Hard Brexit at any cost" anti-strategy currently being offered by the Tories.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
One or the other. DUP will want concessions on Brexit.
quote:I posted a link above - it is about finding people who are representative of a constituency and clever statistical modeling.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Thanks alienfromzog.
Exit polls: how are they conducted? Do they try and ask as many people as possible, or do they try and selectively choose a wide sample based on gender, age, race [I know; but I can't think of a better word], etc...?
quote:Thanks...sorry; missed that link.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I posted a link above - it is about finding people who are representative of a constituency and clever statistical modeling.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Thanks alienfromzog.
Exit polls: how are they conducted? Do they try and ask as many people as possible, or do they try and selectively choose a wide sample based on gender, age, race [I know; but I can't think of a better word], etc...?
quote:The Scottish government has already formally requested a referendum, so it's now in the hands of whoever will be PM whether or not to grant that request. Maybe a clever move for a pro-unionist PM to let the Scottish government run their referendum with an expectation that support for independence will be less than it was in 2014 (in part because of antipathy towards yet another referendum), which really will kick independence into the very long grass. Though, recent experience with elections suggests it could be a massive risk. Denying the request for a referendum just plays into the "Scotland under the thumb" narrative.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
SNP: Not really a good night for them. They've still got a majority of Scottish seats. I think Sturgeon will probably kick the second referendum into the long grass unless Brexit goes belly up. That's less likely than it was.
quote:In that sense it's possibly less worse than a victory leaving labour holding the baby (we've just had the lowest growth rates in the region). It just needs 7 good Tories/DUP to stop that bad times being used as an asset grab. The short term pains still worse, but it might recover better.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Will be interesting to see how the Tories respond. May's position looks weak, but who on earth would want to take the poisoned chalice from her right now?
quote:My thoughts entirely.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I blame Cameron. This is what comes of running a referendum and not being prepared to take responsibility for the result.
quote:I think this was little to do with Trump and everything to do with a blinder of a campaign by Corbyn. Young people got the message that the Tories were trying to screw them in many different ways and voted accordingly.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is it possible that to some extent Trump is responsible for getting so many young people out to vote Labour? IIRC, those under 30 have shown a strong reluctance to vote in the past. This time, they've seen in the US what can happen if people don't perform their duty and vote - they get stuck with a Trump whose very committed supporters will vote.
quote:My sentiments as well.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:My thoughts entirely.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I blame Cameron. This is what comes of running a referendum and not being prepared to take responsibility for the result.
quote:I think the vote reveals that voters are in a very contrary mood when it comes to supporting leaders.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is it possible that to some extent Trump is responsible for getting so many young people out to vote Labour? IIRC, those under 30 have shown a strong reluctance to vote in the past. This time, they've seen in the US what can happen if people don't perform their duty and vote - they get stuck with a Trump whose very committed supporters will vote.
quote:Not at all no, because it was such a snap election with no lead up period. Effectively, all existing MPs were automatically candidates to stand again for their own seats. So there was no "preselection process" whatsoever.
Originally posted by simontoad:
The Labour Party has been in such turmoil over the last few years. Did they get a chance to clear out some of the MP's who were conspiring against Corbyn through the preselection process?
quote:I think Ruth Davidson led a good campaign here in Scotland. The Tory leaflets which came through our door focussed on Davidson; I don't recall May's name or image appearing at all. Her campaign focussed on attacking IndyRef2, but she had some good slogans - "education, not separation" More money for schools, increase teacher numbers. Education is a devolved matter, so she could campaign on this regardless of anything the Westminster Tories said.
The Tories had a terrible campaign and had no policies with any appeal for the young or poor.
quote:I don't think the Tories had any policies with any appeal for anyone beyond grammar school obsessives and workhouse managers.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it was more than "up yours", to be honest. The Tories had a terrible campaign and had no policies with any appeal for the young or poor.
quote:50%+ of Scots are against independence.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And the reasons being suggested for the enormous drop in SNP support?
quote:I think this is why John McDonnell is suggesting an issue by issue minority government. (Though I doubt it will happen.)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, I think this campaign has highlighted the differences between Scottish Labour and Westminster Labour - and also interestingly between Welsh Labour and Westminster Labour.
Another problem with the Westminster Labour party is that it is still contains people with wildly differing views. If it had an opportunity to form a coalition, I think it is more likely to fail due to problems from within the party than without.
quote:I can't see how that can possibly work. The arithmetic doesn't stack up - the government would be defeated on any issue that the Tories + DUP voted together on.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think this is why John McDonnell is suggesting an issue by issue minority government. (Though I doubt it will happen.)
quote:Sturgeon proposed IndyRef2 too quickly. Also, the last result, when the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats, was never going to be replicated. The SNP won 35 seats, compared to the Conservatives 13, Labours 7 and the Lib Dems 4. Under most circumstances that would be seen as a good result for the SNP.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And the reasons being suggested for the enormous drop in SNP support?
quote:I can't see it. They seem to hate him with a passion; or hate what he stands for with a passion and therefore he is a target.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Surely now he deserves to be allowed to lead without sniping from his critics; he's won that.
quote:I suspect, and fear, you're right. But surely on the basis of last night's result, the last thing Labour needs is more in-fighting. Now's the time to go after the Tories, not each other.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:I can't see it. They seem to hate him with a passion; or hate what he stands for with a passion and therefore he is a target.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Surely now he deserves to be allowed to lead without sniping from his critics; he's won that.
I hope *I* am wrong.
quote:Indeed, a very comfortable majority voted against it in the referendum, but the SNP still held all but 3 of the Scottish seats in the old Parliament.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:50%+ of Scots are against independence.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And the reasons being suggested for the enormous drop in SNP support?
quote:Me too. I'm really very happy to have been wrong. I was looking for that thread where we debated his leadership and competence, but from memory the things I had against him were his inability to do any deals to bring the party together, apparent inability to manage appointments and affairs in his office and the shambolic appearance.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
OK, I'll 'fess up - I got Corbyn wrong.
quote:Yes. After the first ref, the SNP were able to galvanise support in the next Westminster election to pull off a shock result.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed, a very comfortable majority voted against it in the referendum, but the SNP still held all but 3 of the Scottish seats in the old Parliament.
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Surely now he deserves to be allowed to lead without sniping from his critics; he's won that.
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I can't see it. They seem to hate him with a passion; or hate what he stands for with a passion and therefore he is a target.
I hope *I* am wrong.
quote:They may do that. Politicians are usually pragmatists. If their political interests are best served by pulling together and fighting the Tories there's a fair chance they will do that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I suspect, and fear, you're right. But surely on the basis of last night's result, the last thing Labour needs is more in-fighting. Now's the time to go after the Tories, not each other.
quote:Please explain how that could be done. Even ignoring the DUP, the arithmetic doesn't add up.
Originally posted by mdijon:
They may do that. Politicians are usually pragmatists. If their political interests are best served by pulling together and fighting the Tories there's a fair chance they will do that.
quote:Well in the words of a Tory MP this morning, "the electorate plainly have got it wrong".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nobody has won. A minority government in either direction would be weak. It is craziness to say otherwise.
quote:I think the effect of b) was that the May became the story - and the media whatever their biases still want to run with the story, and sensing blood they moved in.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me the turning issues were; a) that the more mainstream press treated Corbyn a bit more fairly under election campaign rules (excluding Mail and Sun from that description); b) that May had a terrible campaign and really tarnished the Tory-competent Labour-incompetent idea c) Corbyn penchant to look calm and steady in the face of a tunnel of shit cut a contrast with the flappable PM and
quote:I think in the coming years politics in a lot of developed countries is going to see a significant shift as more and more young people start realising it’s worth coming out to vote.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think this was little to do with Trump and everything to do with a blinder of a campaign by Corbyn. Young people got the message that the Tories were trying to screw them in many different ways and voted accordingly.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Is it possible that to some extent Trump is responsible for getting so many young people out to vote Labour? IIRC, those under 30 have shown a strong reluctance to vote in the past. This time, they've seen in the US what can happen if people don't perform their duty and vote - they get stuck with a Trump whose very committed supporters will vote.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
They may do that. Politicians are usually pragmatists. If their political interests are best served by pulling together and fighting the Tories there's a fair chance they will do that.
quote:I wasn't talking about governing. A given Labour MP is probably doing better hitching themselves to Corbyn's stellar result than descending into infighting.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain how that could be done. Even ignoring the DUP, the arithmetic doesn't add up.
quote:Sorry pardon, I lost the thread of what you were saying.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I wasn't talking about governing. A given Labour MP is probably doing better hitching themselves to Corbyn's stellar result than descending into infighting.
quote:Interesting...
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think in the coming years politics in a lot of developed countries is going to see a significant shift as more and more young people start realising it’s worth coming out to vote.
quote:The Scottish Parliament isn't elected by FPTP, but by AMS (additional member system) which reduces the chances of any one party having an overall majority. Again, I think the current large number of SNP MSPs is a reaction; I expect it will go down next election, and the voting system will exacerbate this.
The vote at the next election for the Scottish Parliament will be very interesting.
quote:The big difference was that in 2015 there was no question about there being another independence referendum. The 2014 result was clear, and without any major change in circumstances there wasn't going to be another shot until sometime after 2030. Scots opposed to independence could then vote SNP based on support for the rest of their policies (or simply an "up-you" to the Labour and Tory two-party system) without fear that by doing so they were implicitely supporting another referendum during the course of the Parliament (and, several after that).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yes. After the first ref, the SNP were able to galvanise support in the next Westminster election to pull off a shock result.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed, a very comfortable majority voted against it in the referendum, but the SNP still held all but 3 of the Scottish seats in the old Parliament.
That was never going to work this time around, and focusing on the possibility of an #indyref2 was a mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well in the words of a Tory MP this morning, "the electorate plainly have got it wrong".
quote:Which is, of course, one of the main complaints about the 'anti-democratic' EU by Brexiters, that they keep forcing countries to have referendums until they produce the 'right result'.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Well in the words of a Tory MP this morning, "the electorate plainly have got it wrong".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nobody has won. A minority government in either direction would be weak. It is craziness to say otherwise.
You'll just have to keep on having fresh elections until they get it right.
Welcome to Italian politics.
quote:Grayson Perry's got there first!
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
May going to the palace at 12:30 with "informal support understanding" from the DUP to provide a working majority.
quote:Speaking as someone else who called it wrong, I think there needs to be humility on the part of the PLP and magnanimity on the part of Corbyn et. al.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Surely now he deserves to be allowed to lead without sniping from his critics; he's won that.quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I can't see it. They seem to hate him with a passion; or hate what he stands for with a passion and therefore he is a target.
I hope *I* am wrong.quote:They may do that. Politicians are usually pragmatists. If their political interests are best served by pulling together and fighting the Tories there's a fair chance they will do that.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I suspect, and fear, you're right. But surely on the basis of last night's result, the last thing Labour needs is more in-fighting. Now's the time to go after the Tories, not each other.
quote:This has got to hurt: Nutall's big thing when he became leader was how UKIP was going to do serious damage to Labour for their (allegedly) anti-Brexit stance. Now Nutall's quit and Corbyn looks more secure than for a long time.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Nutall has quit as UKIP leader, as of course they didn't get any seats. He's making a speech at the moment insisting they are still electorally relevant....
quote:Of course Labour don't have an inherent and inalienable right to govern, but it will do them good to reflect on that for a while.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Once more we have one party surprised that the electorate doesn't share its belief that it has an inherent and inalienable right to govern, and a second which again has successfully bribed influential sections of the electorate with uncosted promises that will prove a legislative nightmare and cost billions.
quote:Not sure that's true - Barrow is where all the nuclear submarines are built...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
It was vaguely funny watching that Woodcock guy in Barrow get asked what he thought about Corbyn - his only answer was "I'm not sure what is going on." Dude won by less then 500 votes and likely only won due to Corbyn but just couldn't admit that possibly Corbyn was a decent campaigner.
quote:and when "one of the other parties" (Labour) was telling people to vote for the other "other party" to stop the SNP winning seats, you end up with "surprise" Tory gains.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This has made a vote for the SNP and explicit vote for an early IndyRef2 - which affected the local elections (where it should have been irrelevant) and yesterday. So, those people who don't want another referendum (which, probably, includes some of the vote-weary 45%) were more inclined to look at one of the other parties.
quote:Barrow has voted Labour since 1987 but the majorities have been slipping each election.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Not sure that's true - Barrow is where all the nuclear submarines are built...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
It was vaguely funny watching that Woodcock guy in Barrow get asked what he thought about Corbyn - his only answer was "I'm not sure what is going on." Dude won by less then 500 votes and likely only won due to Corbyn but just couldn't admit that possibly Corbyn was a decent campaigner.
Woodcock is relatively popular locally, and it's possible that it was indeed Corbyn that gave him the 500 or so he needed to get over the line.
It's however equally likely that it was Corbyn that got the other guy to within 500 or so of him in the first place...
quote:The Tory hope is a bunch of fundamentalist Protestants with historic links to Loyalist terrorist groups.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The DUP manifesto - the Bible with fortnightly bin collections.
quote:I woke up this morning and can't quite believe what I'm reading. I know political parties like to hold on to power, but surely not at any cost. A Tory/DUP alliance......well, I've seen it all now. What a terrible, terrible mistake.
The Tory hope is a bunch of fundamentalist Protestants with historic links to Loyalist terrorist groups.
quote:In the 1980s Barrow elected a conservative, switching to labour in the 1990s with a generally declining majority.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Barrow has voted Labour since 1987 but the majorities have been slipping each election.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Not sure that's true - Barrow is where all the nuclear submarines are built...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
It was vaguely funny watching that Woodcock guy in Barrow get asked what he thought about Corbyn - his only answer was "I'm not sure what is going on." Dude won by less then 500 votes and likely only won due to Corbyn but just couldn't admit that possibly Corbyn was a decent campaigner.
Woodcock is relatively popular locally, and it's possible that it was indeed Corbyn that gave him the 500 or so he needed to get over the line.
It's however equally likely that it was Corbyn that got the other guy to within 500 or so of him in the first place...
Woodcock held on by 800 votes in 2015. He likely would have lost but for Corbyn.
quote:I'd like to see Corbyn use the next few years to take an iron grip on the party machine and use it to attack his internal opponents. He should pick a few vulnerable Blairites and show the party that dissent will be exterminated. OK, I'm beginning to go Dr Who now, but I am excited.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
It was vaguely funny watching that Woodcock guy in Barrow get asked what he thought about Corbyn - his only answer was "I'm not sure what is going on." Dude won by less then 500 votes and likely only won due to Corbyn but just couldn't admit that possibly Corbyn was a decent campaigner.
I suspect its going to take a good long while for the most virulent of anti-Corbyn MP's to admit their current leader is not as bad as they thought.
quote:It does rather reduce the British government's ability to play honest broker in the Province if it is dependent for it's survival for the votes of one faction in the House of Commons.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Karl:
quote:I woke up this morning and can't quite believe what I'm reading. I know political parties like to hold on to power, but surely not at any cost. A Tory/DUP alliance......well, I've seen it all now. What a terrible, terrible mistake.
The Tory hope is a bunch of fundamentalist Protestants with historic links to Loyalist terrorist groups.
quote:I think if he does that, it will be fatal for the party's chances of doing even better at the next election - Labour in-fighting once again.
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:I'd like to see Corbyn use the next few years to take an iron grip on the party machine and use it to attack his internal opponents. He should pick a few vulnerable Blairites and show the party that dissent will be exterminated. OK, I'm beginning to go Dr Who now, but I am excited.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
It was vaguely funny watching that Woodcock guy in Barrow get asked what he thought about Corbyn - his only answer was "I'm not sure what is going on." Dude won by less then 500 votes and likely only won due to Corbyn but just couldn't admit that possibly Corbyn was a decent campaigner.
I suspect its going to take a good long while for the most virulent of anti-Corbyn MP's to admit their current leader is not as bad as they thought.
quote:Dammit you're right. Thought I'd caught the official results, but obviously not.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I've been asleep but I think this is wrong, sadly.
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
Sexist scumbag, Philip Davies, has lost Shipley. A pleasing result.
quote:The "spongers" line did not play well for Harold Wilson.
Originally posted by Callan:
On the plus side, if you live in Northern Ireland you can now expect to be living the life of Riley at the expense of the English taxpayer. I'm sure that won't stimulate any resentment among the English who are notoriously laid back about that sort of thing.
quote:Well, when all the other parties have point-blank said that they refuse to work with the Tories, and yet the Tories still have the largest block of seats (not quite a majority, but close), that's what happens.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I know political parties like to hold on to power, but surely not at any cost. A Tory/DUP alliance......well, I've seen it all now. What a terrible, terrible mistake.
quote:When the Conservatives and the DUP have 328 seats between them and Labour have 261, why shouldn't they get the first chance to form a government? 326 is the magic number for an overall majority, but since Sinn Fein don't sit, they have the arithmetic!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I woke up this morning and can't quite believe what I'm reading. I know political parties like to hold on to power, but surely not at any cost. A Tory/DUP alliance......well, I've seen it all now. What a terrible, terrible mistake.
quote:Well, she's obviously not going to say "My government is now on life-support propped up by a bunch of religious bigots and terrorist-lovers."
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Wow.
Just read a transcript of May's speech outside No 10; it's harder to imagine a stronger case of denial of what's happened over the last 12-24 hours than that, basically pretending that nothing has changed, that everything's still OK for her, that things can go on as normal and that - most incredibly - hooking up with the DUP will provide "certainty" for 5 years.
quote:Entitlement is the wrong phrase. In a Westminster parliament, the government can only exist if it has the support of a majority of MPs. It isn't about whether May is "entitled" to form a government, it is about whether she can hold together enough MPs to deliver a government platform.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think that the Tories with DUP support are perfectly entitled to form a government because they still had 50 seats more than Labour. I suspect that, hopefully, a hard Brexit is much less likely, because it will have to focus more on the needs of Northern Ireland to maintain an open border. Also May is a busted flush who won't be taken seriously in Brussels. That could be good for a serious softening of her stance.
quote:Rubbish.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Tories would be able to form a perfectly functional government without the help of the DUP. But, it appears Mrs May has bought into the lie that a strong and stable government needs to be able to control a majority of MPs. Which is, of course, nonsense.
quote:I suggest you misunderstand the nature of the Westminster system. It simply isn't built for coalitions or cross-party agreement on the majority of issues - there simply isn't time to debate absolutely everything.
A minority government is better than a majority in many ways. Most importantly they can't rely on simply whipping their MPs through the lobbies to get their way. They need to sell their policies, convincing at least a small number of the MPs from other parties to support them (or, at the very least a larger number to abstain). Policies which can generate cross-party support are IMO almost guaranteed to be better. And, being only a small number of seats short the only way they'd lose a no-confidence vote is if they do something so stupid that they can't even get all of their own MPs voting for them, in which case they don't deserve to govern.
quote:I think a more immediate concern is that there are Tory MPs who are uncomfortable with becoming the DUP-in-London.
By bringing the DUP onboard Mrs May would have ticked off many of the Tory voters for no real gain. Another example of why she isn't fit to be our PM.
quote:On the first point, no she's not going to admit "it's all gone a bit s**t".But when your party's just lost their majority in an election they (and everyone else) were expecting to win handsomely, an election that was totally unnecessary and which you called for no real reason AND when a lot of that is being attributed to you fighting a poor campaign and producing a poor manifesto... surely some level of "lessons learnt" or "we will listen more closely" would be appropriate when you re-enter Number 10? Didn't see any of that in May's speech.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:Well, she's obviously not going to say "My government is now on life-support propped up by a bunch of religious bigots and terrorist-lovers."
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Wow.
Just read a transcript of May's speech outside No 10; it's harder to imagine a stronger case of denial of what's happened over the last 12-24 hours than that, basically pretending that nothing has changed, that everything's still OK for her, that things can go on as normal and that - most incredibly - hooking up with the DUP will provide "certainty" for 5 years.
But, on that score, what potential issues, if any, are there which might compel the DUP to take the risk abandoning the Tories in a confidence vote?
quote:The SNP was never likely to keep all the seats they had. The result does show that the polls saying there wasn't an appetite in Scotland for amongst the majority for another vote were right. 65% of people voted for a Unionist party rather than the SNP.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The big difference was that in 2015 there was no question about there being another independence referendum. The 2014 result was clear, and without any major change in circumstances there wasn't going to be another shot until sometime after 2030. Scots opposed to independence could then vote SNP based on support for the rest of their policies (or simply an "up-you" to the Labour and Tory two-party system) without fear that by doing so they were implicitely supporting another referendum during the course of the Parliament (and, several after that).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yes. After the first ref, the SNP were able to galvanise support in the next Westminster election to pull off a shock result.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed, a very comfortable majority voted against it in the referendum, but the SNP still held all but 3 of the Scottish seats in the old Parliament.
That was never going to work this time around, and focusing on the possibility of an #indyref2 was a mistake.
Then there was Brexit, and the refusal of the Tory government to even consider what the Scottish Parliament were saying, and IndyRef was back on the table. Even holding the referendum had changed the circumstances making an early IndyRef2 more likely - which I think was reflected in the move away from SNP in the Scottish Parliament elections prior to the EU referendum. This has made a vote for the SNP and explicit vote for an early IndyRef2 - which affected the local elections (where it should have been irrelevant) and yesterday. So, those people who don't want another referendum (which, probably, includes some of the vote-weary 45%) were more inclined to look at one of the other parties.
quote:Constitutionally it's innocuous but given the toxicity of some of the DUP positions - on the issue of gay rights, for example, they make Tim Farron look like Peter Tatchell - it's not a good look and it completely nixes the British government's ability to play honest broker. With Stormont currently suspended over a disagreement between the DUP and the Shinners, that is rather significant.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:When the Conservatives and the DUP have 328 seats between them and Labour have 261, why shouldn't they get the first chance to form a government? 326 is the magic number for an overall majority, but since Sinn Fein don't sit, they have the arithmetic!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I woke up this morning and can't quite believe what I'm reading. I know political parties like to hold on to power, but surely not at any cost. A Tory/DUP alliance......well, I've seen it all now. What a terrible, terrible mistake.
quote:Westminster is an adverserial system. It doesn't have to be that way, a consensual system is far better and works very well throughout most of the rest of Europe, and beyond. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't want a better way of governing the country than the crap system we currently have. And, if that means needing to find methods of prioritising things so that there is time to debate important issues properly then we need to find those methods, not throw up our hands in defeat and not engage with getting a better system in place. The committee stages of legislation already provide ample opportunity for serious discussion of issues. If we need more time in the chamber, then turning PMQs into a serious discussion rather than the current shambolic circus would help.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suggest you misunderstand the nature of the Westminster system. It simply isn't built for coalitions or cross-party agreement on the majority of issues - there simply isn't time to debate absolutely everything.
quote:And, I agree that's how Westminster currently is. Just that it needn't be that way, and a consensual system could work without changing any of the structures (so, legislation still processes the same way, no need to change the awful FPTP etc), just a change in attitude by MPs to be there to get the best laws for the country rather than shouting down any idea not proposed by their side. Some changes to the system would help, but aren't essential to take a step or two towards a democracy we can be proud of.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry, I don't agree but am too tired to argue about it. Westminster is set up as an adversarial system in a way that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are not.
quote:When we discussed this before many of us sceptics thought the joiners had done so to elect Corbyn for as a one-off act and wouldn't be willing to or able to sell him on the doorstep.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, don't underestimate the effect of the size the Labour Party now is. There were thousands upon thousands of volunteers prepared to go out and knock on doors.
quote:It occurs to me that the whole shiny-faced victory salutes by Corbyn and chums is actually to rouse the base for the next election.
Originally posted by mdijon:
When we discussed this before many of us sceptics thought the joiners had done so to elect Corbyn for as a one-off act and wouldn't be willing to or able to sell him on the doorstep.
Clearly enough of them were in fact both willing and able. And likely the success will inspire more to join them.
quote:I'd say, 'that's because she's a Conservative' except that Gordon Brown was much the same.
Originally posted by Callan:
... The trouble with Mrs May is that simply everything is subordinated to the question of staying in power. ...
quote:Politicians have to pretend they have done better than they have done. But having said that, going from facing a wipe-out to a hung parliament under the circumstances of adverse press and a divided parliamentary party is pretty incredible and I suspect that many of the smiles are genuinely heart-felt.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Surely it is clear to everyone that nobody has won. Yes, the Labour party did far better than almost anyone expected, but there is no sense that they could run a minority government with so many seats fewer than the Tories. So pretending that they could is either bollocks or a ploy.
quote:Whats your evidence for this?
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't like Jeremy Corbyn. The election campaign hasn't changed that. Nor have the Facebook sharing of his fans. And I don't think the adulation he's been getting recently is good for him. He isn't used it it. I strongly suspect that over the last 18 months it has been going to his head.
quote:You can bet Tory Party HQ will be running that through the Wapping Liar and similar papers.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The hilarious thing is that I'm sure Corbyn has rung SF to try to get them to help him into government.
quote:Gordon Brown didn't resign until the coalition was agreed because somebody had to stay in place to mind the fort. He didn't come out maintaining that nothign had changed and that he was providing certainty.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd say, 'that's because she's a Conservative' except that Gordon Brown was much the same.
quote:If they decide to do the dirty and go to Westminster for a vote of no confidence, I'm going to bed and not getting up until Monday.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sinn Fein press conference coming up. Will they do the unthinkable now they know the DUP are going to hold a power balance?
quote:I note you carefully avoided explaining which Monday that will be
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:If they decide to do the dirty and go to Westminster for a vote of no confidence, I'm going to bed and not getting up until Monday.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Sinn Fein press conference coming up. Will they do the unthinkable now they know the DUP are going to hold a power balance?
quote:There's always been a difference between the "mathematical" and "working" majorities though - the working majority assuming that Sinn Fein don't take their seats, thus giving the government "free" extra seats. If Sinn Fein suddenly turn up then the "working" majority shifts....
Originally posted by Stetson:
Unless I misread the numbers on the Guardian's website, the Tories and the DUP together have a majority of the seats. So even if every other party were to vote against them, they'd still win(assuming no defections from their own ranks)
quote:That's before you factor in by-elections...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
They have a majority of 10. If you imagine the number of times someone is going to be sick or away (and imagine the opposition refusing to play by the usual informal pairing system), then that's going to be an incredibly difficult thing to defend.
Also you'd need to have a government where there was nobody rebelling. Ever.
Not going to happen.
quote:This is too bleak Matt. Remember that the DUP has essentially rolled up the old UUP - lots of their MPs are former UUP including Arlene Foster herself, as are most of their voters. That now means "most Unionists in NI". This is not a totally rabid constituency, any more than the fact that "most Nationalists in NI" voted for Sinn Fein indicates that they are all tommy-gun wielding terrorists.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The thought of any government being beholden to the poisonous fruit of Ian Paisley's halitosis-ridden bellowing, the closest thing Norn Iron has to a National Socialist party (Godwin? Who cares?) fills me with dread...
quote:Yes, precisely. Hence if Sinn Fein did turn up, and sided with Corbyn, May would toasted. They don't seem to be dropping that particular bombshell today at least anyway. In their press conference they referred to the reinstatement of Stormont etc - which I'm sure was a calculated reminder to May and the DUP.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well there are 7 SF who don't sit plus 4 (I think) for the Speaker and deputies. Erm..
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the UK delegation going to Brussels in 10 days' time will be the Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team. Bit of a mouthful so I do hope they think of an acronym...
quote:I second that....
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So the UK delegation going to Brussels in 10 days' time will be the Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team. Bit of a mouthful so I do hope they think of an acronym...
quote:Am I missing something here?
Hence if Sinn Fein did turn up, and sided with Corbyn, May would toasted.
quote:Lab 261 + LD 12 + SNP 35 + G 1 + PC 4 = 313 plus 7 for SF = 320
Originally posted by Stetson:
Am I missing something here?
According to the Guardian, the Tories and the DUP have a combined total of 328 seats.
All the other parties have a combined total of 309. Included in that is 12 for "Others", which I would assume covers Sinn Fein.
quote:I think someone has miscounted. The numbers above are from the Guardian page you link to (I forgot the 1 Indy who is maybe to go with the Tories from NI)
So, Tories/DUP 328, everyone else, including Sinn Fein, 309. Even if Sinn Fein starts showing up, and everyone in the 309 votes against the government, that still doesn't give them a majority.
quote:Well, I guess I WAS missing something.
I think someone has miscounted.
quote:Any chance of getting the Commons' opening prayer changed to Hail Mary?
One can only hope that the egregious DUPEs are snatched away by aliens over the weekend.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Oh I don't know; maybe satan was busy and didn't have nine other minions to spare so the DUP were the next best thing. But really, a coalition with UKIP would have been preferable.
Constitutionally it's innocuous but given the toxicity of some of the DUP positions - on the issue of gay rights, for example, they make Tim Farron look like Peter Tatchell - it's not a good look and it completely nixes the British government's ability to play honest broker.
quote:Well, it wasn't us... we don't want them...
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Meanwhile, it does seem as though aliens have indeed snatched away Nutty, Garbage, and The Kippers, so let us be thankful, amidst the brouhaha, for small mercies.
IJ
quote:It works quite well in other parts of the world.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Rubbish.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Tories would be able to form a perfectly functional government without the help of the DUP. But, it appears Mrs May has bought into the lie that a strong and stable government needs to be able to control a majority of MPs. Which is, of course, nonsense.
quote:I suggest you misunderstand the nature of the Westminster system. It simply isn't built for coalitions or cross-party agreement on the majority of issues - there simply isn't time to debate absolutely everything.
A minority government is better than a majority in many ways. Most importantly they can't rely on simply whipping their MPs through the lobbies to get their way. They need to sell their policies, convincing at least a small number of the MPs from other parties to support them (or, at the very least a larger number to abstain). Policies which can generate cross-party support are IMO almost guaranteed to be better. And, being only a small number of seats short the only way they'd lose a no-confidence vote is if they do something so stupid that they can't even get all of their own MPs voting for them, in which case they don't deserve to govern.
...
quote:From what I was seeing last night the UKIP vote split about 40 Labour 60 Tory. That indicates that a post Brexit political landscape is very different then pre-Brexit. (Which also makes sense given how many Labour constituencies also voted Leave).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...
Labour didn’t lose the seats they were expected to in the north. Even though most of the UKIP vote went to the Conservatives, Labour also increased their vote numbers by enough to hold them off.
...
quote:I think what Labour are proposing if they go into minority gov is interesting but may not work.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Politicians have to pretend they have done better than they have done. But having said that, going from facing a wipe-out to a hung parliament under the circumstances of adverse press and a divided parliamentary party is pretty incredible and I suspect that many of the smiles are genuinely heart-felt.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Surely it is clear to everyone that nobody has won. Yes, the Labour party did far better than almost anyone expected, but there is no sense that they could run a minority government with so many seats fewer than the Tories. So pretending that they could is either bollocks or a ploy.
Claiming to be ready to form a government is maybe an over-egged pudding, but what is an opposition for if not to oppose?
quote:Not sure this would work - presumably one needs to have an overall budget otherwise everyone accepts the "good" bits and rejects the "bad".
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I wonder if you could do it if you tied the budget element to the measure instead of a unified budget.
I propose to this house, x billion NHS investment, paid for by x% on income tax. Now vote.
I propose to this house this infrastructure investment, paid for by x% on corporation tax.
Etc etc.
quote:By the time you take 7 off for the Shinners and 1 for the Speaker, the opposition can only muster 313. The Tories on their own have 318 plus an extra 10 if supported by the DUP. So there isn't any other maths that works in the new House of Commons unless Labour tries its hand at a minority government. But it won't get the chance if the largest party can pass a Queen's Speech and budget.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I make it 321 for Labour + everyone else:
quote:I guess that's where lobbying whips and strategy come in. I think it's the only way it's possible. You'd need a sort of modular budget plan, for which you have an overall vision - you'd have to then tie your key concessions and most challenging funding issues to the most appealing spends.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Not sure this would work - presumably one needs to have an overall budget otherwise everyone accepts the "good" bits and rejects the "bad".
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I wonder if you could do it if you tied the budget element to the measure instead of a unified budget.
I propose to this house, x billion NHS investment, paid for by x% on income tax. Now vote.
I propose to this house this infrastructure investment, paid for by x% on corporation tax.
Etc etc.
quote:I'm an out of touch American but I too had gotten the impression that the DUP had basically taken up the spot on the NI political/tribal spectrum formerly occupied by the UUP (and that the UUP had itself moved to the center as a result).
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:This is too bleak Matt. Remember that the DUP has essentially rolled up the old UUP - lots of their MPs are former UUP including Arlene Foster herself, as are most of their voters. That now means "most Unionists in NI". This is not a totally rabid constituency, any more than the fact that "most Nationalists in NI" voted for Sinn Fein indicates that they are all tommy-gun wielding terrorists.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The thought of any government being beholden to the poisonous fruit of Ian Paisley's halitosis-ridden bellowing, the closest thing Norn Iron has to a National Socialist party (Godwin? Who cares?) fills me with dread...
Though it certainly depresses me (in a "no good deed goes unpunished" way) that UUP, SDLP & Alliance now have 0 seats between them. Ah well at least there's still Lady Sylvia Hermon.
quote:I find comments like this bemusing to be frank. Similarly the stuff about Ed Milliband 'stabbing his brother in the back' or 'being too hungry for power'.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I still don't like Jeremy Corbyn. The election campaign hasn't changed that. Nor have the Facebook sharing of his fans. And I don't think the adulation he's been getting recently is good for him. He isn't used it it. I strongly suspect that over the last 18 months it has been going to his head. I also still find John McDonnell sinister.
quote:It isn't simple, but this might help.
Originally posted by HCH:
As a mere American, I cannot claim to understand all this. Am I correct in thinking that if no other party is willing to form a coalition with the Tories, British government will face a huge crisis? (I do understand that in this case, this is not occurring.)
quote:This is written into the Fixed Parliaments act btw.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
We are used to the government changing within hours of the election result becoming public knowledge. The public clamour during the negotiations for the last coalition government was such that they couldn't continue negotiations beyond about 14 days.
quote:Bloody hell ! Kensington ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Labour take Kensington by 20 votes.
quote:The constituency was redrawn in 2010. It's mostly North Kensington, which isn't that flash.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:Bloody hell ! Kensington ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Labour take Kensington by 20 votes.
quote:Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's share of the vote increased by 9.6 per cent – more than any other leader in any other election since Clem Attlee's 1945 landslide. [quoting Telegraph article on this]
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn thinks he won the election.
To be clear, he didn't. The winner gets to enact their manifesto, live in no.10, run the country, change things and that.
We will now have to endure four more years of the Tories, directed from the wings by the 'robust' DUP. It's the most vulnerable who will be paying for Labour's defeat.
Despite the Tory campaign being pitiful, the manifesto being designed to lose votes, and May having all the charisma of a ready-to-throw out piece of soap, CORBYN STILL MANAGED TO LOSE.
Next time it won't be so easy. I just hope the person after Corbyn is less extreme, more able to appeal to the centre, and actually win.
Ed Milliband would right now be posting last laugh pictures of himself eating bacon butties in the no.10 kitchen if he'd been in charge.
And this country would be a much better place for it.
quote:Hardly fair comment. Labour gained 30 seats and over 40% of the votes cast. The Conservatives declined from a 20% polls lead to about 2% in practice. Jeremy Corbyn campaigned very well, mobilised a lot of youth voters and also managed to get a much better than expected share of the collapsing UKIP vote.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Despite the Tory campaign being pitiful, the manifesto being designed to lose votes, and May having all the charisma of a ready-to-throw out piece of soap, CORBYN STILL MANAGED TO LOSE.
quote:Something May's struggling to do.
Originally posted by Cod:
It is a fair comment. Labour lost. The point of fighting a general election isn't to make gains: it's to form the next government.
quote:This is bang on. I have been pretty critical of Jeremy Corbyn but I went to bed last night in a safe Tory constituency that survived the New Labour Tsunami of 1997 and woke up in a Tory-Labour marginal. That wouldn't have happened, I think, without Corbyn.
There is no way Owen Smith, or any of the other recent challengers for the Labour leadership could have delivered this. I stayed up and watched the results come in, there were swings to Labour *from conservative* of 11% in some seats. Overall, his campaign pushed turnout up 4-5%, brought in young people many of whom had not voted before.
quote:Except that to make gains is explicitly why May said she called the election. And, in that sense, Labour did win. The person who was down in the polls by a significant margin. The one everybody said was not a good leader. Him. He pulled a significant change in the balance of power.
Originally posted by Cod:
It is a fair comment. Labour lost. The point of fighting a general election isn't to make gains: it's to form the next government.
quote:Well, you clearly weren't paying attention because she explicitly stated that the size of her mandate would give her extra leverage in her negotiations with the EU.
I don't remember Theresa May saying that she called the election in order to increase the Conservative majority.
quote:How?! She had the majority she needed. How is hubris and incompetence irrelevant?
Originally posted by Cod:
Yes, I probably forgot. But even so, it's irrelevant.
quote:Wrong, it is very relevant. May wanted a larger majority so she didn't have to worry about a few rebels (eg, Ken Clarke) buggering things up. She didn't get that "mandate" (God help me, I so hate that word), so in terms of the result she wanted against the outcome, she lost.
Originally posted by Cod:
Yes, I probably forgot. But even so, it's irrelevant.
quote:You don't?
Originally posted by Cod:
I don't remember Theresa May saying that she called the election in order to increase the Conservative majority.
quote:This would be my hope. What Corbyn did manage might not be a miracle, but it was close. Dissatisfaction rarely trumps the status quo. That as many voters were motivated to participate as did, was impressive. If that can be maintained, then it will be a miracle.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is not always about winning today, if Corbyn has caused a generation to become politically involved - that's to the great benefit of this country. If Corbyn has pulled the public and political debate back from the spiral into our aspiration to become a mini-US, it will have been worth it - because it won't just alter what the Labour Party does, it will alter what all the parties do.
quote:Well, quite. If hypothetically speaking Cooper or Smith could have won the election May would never have called it.
Originally posted by Cod:
If Labour had been close in the polls, calling the election would have been too great a risk for her and she either wouldn't have done so, or might have done so and lost.
quote:It still has an average income of £150k.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:The constituency was redrawn in 2010. It's mostly North Kensington, which isn't that flash.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:Bloody hell ! Kensington ?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Labour take Kensington by 20 votes.
quote:Cheers for that.
Originally posted by Cod:
It is a fair comment. Labour lost. The point of fighting a general election isn't to make gains: it's to form the next government.
quote:Once you have your majority? Quite irrelevant. Consider your side of the pond.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:How?! She had the majority she needed. How is hubris and incompetence irrelevant?
Originally posted by Cod:
Yes, I probably forgot. But even so, it's irrelevant.
quote:There are two parts to this. Firstly it is constitutionally required that the leader of the opposition should try to form a government if Mrs May were to fail to do so - or do so and then subsequently fall. This is even more true since the Fixed Term Parliament Act. One of the interesting things I am seeing is how ignorant much of the public are to the UK constitution. I say this, not as a criticism. Our constitution is very messy and we haven't been in minority territory in my lifetime. So, in one sense Corbyn is acting responsibly and in line with the the constitutional requirements.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the Corbyn offer to form a minority Labour administration, I think they want to write an alternative Queen's speech and force a very hard fight over the one which May puts forward. If the May Queen's speech is lost, Corbyn would get the next opportunity to form a minority government, failing which there would be another election. So I don't think the Corbyn offer is too far-fetched. A failure of a minority Corbyn government trying to pursue an anti-austerity programme gives them a platform for the next election. A failure of a minority May government to cling on to power doesn't look nearly as good a launch pad.
quote:Completely agree.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We're in the messy world of minority government politics now, and my gut tells me that Mrs May will be very bad at it.
quote:I heard something on 'today' a bit earlier that the 1922 Committee do not want a leadership change yet. Seems sensible. Then there was another interview with a journalist who has written an article in one of today's papers, The Times' I think, saying that she worked in Theresa May's department for two years, and found her to be inflexible. However, it was also obvious that she herself did not fit in there.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
If, a big if, May was to step down, who are likely top put up their hands? Surely not Boris!?!
edit: oh, and I just saw the interview where she revealed the naughtiest thing[*] she'd ever done; she really is rather poor at personal interviews/questions.
[*]hold on to your hats: running through wheat fields making farmers none too happy
quote:Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, an MSP, is a lesbian She said last night that:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
How many LGBT MPs does Theresa May have in her party? How likely are they to support DUP policies?
quote:Ah, you mean This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
A victory for labour (and Britain) but a victory like the Battle of Britain, the Mons and Marne, Thermopylae, rather than a concluding victory.
quote:I think she has lost the moral authority to govern, even within her party; even The Mail and The Sun, fiercely pro-May papers in the campaign, have front pages admitting she's a dead duck. I think, sooner or later, there'll be a leadership election (and probably another general election before too long).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Stejjie: The fact is, as Cod says, she has a non-absolute majority, one there is no obvious opposition voting block against if I've got the maths right.
While the Tories are a fractious bunch and several would love to see her go, I think they're smart enough to realise that now is not the time for a backbench revolt as their chances of actually losing to Labour have increased vastly. Their only hope is to stick together.
Of course it can be argued, rightly so in my view, that May has lost the moral authority to govern, but given her affinity for Trump, I don't think a trifling matter like moral authority is going to matter to her. Much like Trump, if she has the numbers, that will be good enough for her, and if she doesn't, well then hand over to Pence, sorry, Boris (indeed tipped to succeed her by the UK papers this morning).
quote:I think there's a certain amount of truth in this:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's an opportunity time. I'm one of those putting my hands up and saying that Jeremy Corbyn deserves ongoing positive support, not sniping, from within. And I'm very glad he's mobilised the young.
quote:It's a view. I'm just thinking about smart political scene-setting for the next general election, which seems pretty certain to take place within a year. The Tory Party is an unexploded bomb. The anger against Theresa May and her close circle of advisers over the manifesto and the way the campaign was run is palpable. And the DUP are capable of adding further incendiary ingredients without any help from the opposition.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think immense pressure is the order of the day. The fragile government needs to be put under pressure from the get-go - so that nobody can be ill or away without risking the thing falling.
I think the Queens Speech will probably pass, but it's going to have to be gutted from anything that even a small number of Tories might disagree with.
quote:I also think it is possible that the thing will implode. To me the important thing is to help it do so as quickly as possible before any serious damage is caused. If Lab and the others sit around and watch, it could drag on for years - by which time a lot of damage could have been done.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's a view. I'm just thinking about smart political scene-setting for the next general election, which seems pretty certain to take place within a year. The Tory Party is an unexploded bomb. The anger against Theresa May and her close circle of advisers over the manifesto and the way the campaign was run is palpable. And the DUP are capable of adding further incendiary ingredients without any help from the opposition.
quote:Well, I guess we'll see if it can survive the week. If it can, then I suggest guerilla tactics are needed.
Let them blow themselves up. Then the criticisms over division and lack of authority can be plastered all over the Tories. And if that is coupled with an embracing of Corbyn as a radical, legitimate, proven fighter and leader, a uniting behind him by the PLP, then we're off to the races.
Make no mistake about it, I want this government gone.
quote:You are called Doublethink for a reason 🙂
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Of course, what would be really radical - and will not happen - would be to send two teams, one to negotiate "hard" Brexit and one to negotiate "soft" Brexit. Then put both resulting deals to either the public or parliament.
quote:Yeah, the problem with that is that they already believe they've got a mandate on Brexit (for example) via both a referendum and a vote in the last parliament. So they're going to be going to Brussels to negotiate a deal which isn't ever going to be put to a vote again.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
As this Government is so fragile there is not going to be a lot of scope for doing anything damaging as it won't get voted through the Commons. This hung parliament is going to need to negotiate any changes in the law. Uncontroversial laws will pass, so we won't miss out on essential legislation, but anything that is political is going to struggle.
quote:Utter bollocks.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn thinks he won the election.
To be clear, he didn't. The winner gets to enact their manifesto, live in no.10, run the country, change things and that.
We will now have to endure four more years of the Tories, directed from the wings by the 'robust' DUP. It's the most vulnerable who will be paying for Labour's defeat.
Despite the Tory campaign being pitiful, the manifesto being designed to lose votes, and May having all the charisma of a ready-to-throw out piece of soap, CORBYN STILL MANAGED TO LOSE.
Next time it won't be so easy. I just hope the person after Corbyn is less extreme, more able to appeal to the centre, and actually win.
quote:Two things became very apparent to me overnight: first that there is a huge disparity between the numbers of voters in different constituencies. Which just seems wrong - Dianne Abbott has a majority which is more than the total number of voters in a lot of constituencies.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Secondly, the fact that Labour votes in Tory marginals showed amongst the greatest increases tells me that it's exactly amongst those middle ground swing voters that Corbyn managed to change minds. The collapse of the UKIP vote threw May a lifeline which just pushed her far enough towards the line. Look at the popular vote - there was only 2% in it. The fact that the Tory seat count is significantly higher than Labour's is largely an artefact of our FPTP system; there are a lot of Tory marginals that would take only the tiniest swing to go Labour.
quote:But the only way she can really be forced to go is if she loses a Parliamentary vote.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I think she has lost the moral authority to govern, even within her party; even The Mail and The Sun, fiercely pro-May papers in the campaign, have front pages admitting she's a dead duck. I think, sooner or later, there'll be a leadership election (and probably another general election before too long).
quote:From this side of the Channel the Brexit negotiations look more important than anything else at this point.
What seems more in question is whether that will be immediately. I think focussing on the Brexit negotiations might buy her some more time
quote:I did read the rest of your post, but I want to question this: why is that? AFAIK there's nothing in the rules that says the party has to wait for a parliamentary vote to be lost. Furthermore, there may well be MPs who decide the damage has already been done and want to prevent any further damage, to stop a parliamentary vote being lost in the first place. This is the party that removed Thatcher without her having lost such a vote (as far as I'm aware), on the basis of the damage the Poll Tax was causing and that it looked like Labour would win the following general election: I can't see they'd have any qualms about doing likewise with May at this stage, without her necessarily having lost a parliamentary vote.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:But the only way she can really be forced to go is if she loses a Parliamentary vote.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I think she has lost the moral authority to govern, even within her party; even The Mail and The Sun, fiercely pro-May papers in the campaign, have front pages admitting she's a dead duck. I think, sooner or later, there'll be a leadership election (and probably another general election before too long).
quote:There are proposals to reform exactly that issue in the 2018 Boundary Commission Review
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Two things became very apparent to me overnight: first that there is a huge disparity between the numbers of voters in different constituencies. Which just seems wrong - Dianne Abbott has a majority which is more than the total number of voters in a lot of constituencies.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Secondly, the fact that Labour votes in Tory marginals showed amongst the greatest increases tells me that it's exactly amongst those middle ground swing voters that Corbyn managed to change minds. The collapse of the UKIP vote threw May a lifeline which just pushed her far enough towards the line. Look at the popular vote - there was only 2% in it. The fact that the Tory seat count is significantly higher than Labour's is largely an artefact of our FPTP system; there are a lot of Tory marginals that would take only the tiniest swing to go Labour.
Second, the number of very close marginals is astounding. I think I counted around 7 where the majority was less than 50. That's mental.
The reality is that our political system has been stitched up to the extent that the vast majority of seats are "safe" and only a few actually decide an election. Putting the reluctance of politicians to accept boundary changes into the pot makes it look increasingly like we have a system of patronage and rotten boroughs.
I personally don't think Labour have anything to crow about in this scenario. They're not doing anything about the inherent unfairness that means votes in the Isle of Wight are worth so much less than anywhere else. Because it isn't in their political interest to do so.
The Tories are bastards, but Labour isn't really much better in supporting a corrupt system.
quote:My constituency was being seriously carved up in this proposal, to one that didn't seem to make a lot sense geographically or county wise etc. As I suppose lots of others would be.
Parliament has specified that the 2018 Review must reduce the number of constituencies in the UK to 600 (from the current 650). As independent and impartial bodies, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions are required to review and recommend where the boundaries of those new constituencies should be, with the law requiring that every new constituency (except four specified island constituencies) must have roughly the same number of electors: no fewer than 71,031 and no more than 78,507.
quote:If we are to run with the military metaphor (which emphasises the dreadful adversarial Parliamentary system) then most would say that preventing an enemy offensive gaining their objectives is a victory. The Battle of Britain was a victory because it denied the Luftwaffe air supremacy and made an invasion impossible - it did not regain any lost territory, but a victory nonetheless. Theresa May called the election with the intent of significantly increasing her majority, Labour succeeded in preventing her from doing that, indeed regaining some lost ground to prevent the Conservatives from holding a majority of seats at all without assistance from other parties. That is a victory, winning that particular battle but still needing to win the war.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:Ah, you mean This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
A victory for labour (and Britain) but a victory like the Battle of Britain, the Mons and Marne, Thermopylae, rather than a concluding victory.
quote:Quite honestly, our political culture is completely incapable of understanding what this process even is, never mind what would be required for it to be carried out successfully. Watching most commentators trying to discuss it, and even worse the inevitable vox pops, is like watching a child trying to sketch a masterpiece with crayons. I have honestly no idea what is going to happen, because the reality filters are currently set to paranoid, and the crash when reality breaks through will be deafening and hideously violent. More than that I don't think we can say at the moment, but I am currently praying from the crash position.
From this side of the Channel the Brexit negotiations look more important than anything else at this point.
They start in less than ten days and the Article 50 clock is ticking all the time.
Who in their right minds would want to disrupt these negotiations unless they are actively seeking a "cliff-edge" Brexit?
If they get interrupted by another election I think any outcome of the negotiations will be even more of a shambles than if they are left to continue.
quote:Completely agree. On a previous page I linked so something I wrote on my blog about May over-reaching herself. It was her Waterloo. I did also note in that the ridiculousness of military metaphors to other aspects of life but the parallel is still there. She called the election because she though she could vanquish her enemy. Without that perceived weakness she never would have committed herself.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:If we are to run with the military metaphor (which emphasises the dreadful adversarial Parliamentary system) then most would say that preventing an enemy offensive gaining their objectives is a victory. The Battle of Britain was a victory because it denied the Luftwaffe air supremacy and made an invasion impossible - it did not regain any lost territory, but a victory nonetheless. Theresa May called the election with the intent of significantly increasing her majority, Labour succeeded in preventing her from doing that, indeed regaining some lost ground to prevent the Conservatives from holding a majority of seats at all without assistance from other parties. That is a victory, winning that particular battle but still needing to win the war.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:Ah, you mean This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
A victory for labour (and Britain) but a victory like the Battle of Britain, the Mons and Marne, Thermopylae, rather than a concluding victory.
quote:Sorry, yes, you're right, I'm not expressing myself clearly.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
AFAIK there's nothing in the rules that says the party has to wait for a parliamentary vote to be lost. Furthermore, there may well be MPs who decide the damage has already been done and want to prevent any further damage, to stop a parliamentary vote being lost in the first place.
quote:The only way round it would be to have a coronation like they did when they dumped IDS for Michael Howard. The trouble with that is that is they don't appear to have a Michael Howard figure conveniently to hand.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[multiple x-posts]
quote:Sorry, yes, you're right, I'm not expressing myself clearly.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
AFAIK there's nothing in the rules that says the party has to wait for a parliamentary vote to be lost. Furthermore, there may well be MPs who decide the damage has already been done and want to prevent any further damage, to stop a parliamentary vote being lost in the first place.
If the Tory whip holds, by my maths they have a workable majority. Labour's gains are being celebrated here, and with some justification, but they cannot overcome that majority and I can't see an alliance that would enable them to do so in view of other parties' declarations.
As long as the Tories have a majority, no matter how slim, and given the urgency of sitting down with a coherent team to negotiate Brexit, I can't see any scenario in which a leadership contest does not constitute further damage to the Tories whichever way you look at it.
quote:It could also be a step backwards in trying to reduce sectarianism in parts of Scotland - though the impact of that is far less severe than the potential for disaster in NI.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In other news, it appears this lunchtime that the Tories are attempting to bring the DUP into a formal coalition.
This would be so bad for NI that I can absolutely see SF coming to Westminster to vote in a no-confidence motion.
quote:This is a scary vision of what a DUP coalition might involve.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It could also be a step backwards in trying to reduce sectarianism in parts of Scotland - though the impact of that is far less severe than the potential for disaster in NI.
quote:If anything illustrated the gulf between power and government, this is it. No party that is not prepared to govern - to act in the common interest - should be given access to power.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It could also be a step backwards in trying to reduce sectarianism in parts of Scotland - though the impact of that is far less severe than the potential for disaster in NI.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In other news, it appears this lunchtime that the Tories are attempting to bring the DUP into a formal coalition.
This would be so bad for NI that I can absolutely see SF coming to Westminster to vote in a no-confidence motion.
Another example of the Tory Party putting their own needs above the interests of other parts of the UK (or, indeed the interests of the whole UK).
quote:Sorry if I didn't fully pick up what you were trying to get at. And I do see what you mean: I suppose that's the question anyone thinking Theresa May should go has to ask: "is acting against her going to do more harm than good". By not resigning, I think May's made that question much sharper, effectively saying, "If you challenge me, what further damage are you going to do to the party?" As Callan says, there'd need to be a single candidate the party could unite around; as he also says, there doesn't appear to be anyone like that.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[multiple x-posts]
quote:Sorry, yes, you're right, I'm not expressing myself clearly.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
AFAIK there's nothing in the rules that says the party has to wait for a parliamentary vote to be lost. Furthermore, there may well be MPs who decide the damage has already been done and want to prevent any further damage, to stop a parliamentary vote being lost in the first place.
If the Tory whip holds, by my maths they have a workable majority. Labour's gains are being celebrated here, and with some justification, but they cannot overcome that majority and I can't see an alliance that would enable them to do so in view of other parties' declarations.
As long as the Tories have a majority, no matter how slim, and given the urgency of sitting down with a coherent team to negotiate Brexit, I can't see any scenario in which a leadership contest does not constitute further damage to the Tories whichever way you look at it.
quote:Disparity of constituency sizes is unfortunate but unless the boundaries give a major party an unfair benefit/deficit I don't see it's much to get upset about. It may mean some people's votes have twice the 'value' compared with others' but that's not what makes some seats 'safe' and others marginal (assuming boundaries aren't under political control). But this unevenness is small beer compared with the disporoprtionate effect of the voting system.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Two things became very apparent to me overnight: first that there is a huge disparity between the numbers of voters in different constituencies. Which just seems wrong - Dianne Abbott has a majority which is more than the total number of voters in a lot of constituencies.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Secondly, the fact that Labour votes in Tory marginals showed amongst the greatest increases tells me that it's exactly amongst those middle ground swing voters that Corbyn managed to change minds. The collapse of the UKIP vote threw May a lifeline which just pushed her far enough towards the line. Look at the popular vote - there was only 2% in it. The fact that the Tory seat count is significantly higher than Labour's is largely an artefact of our FPTP system; there are a lot of Tory marginals that would take only the tiniest swing to go Labour.
Second, the number of very close marginals is astounding. I think I counted around 7 where the majority was less than 50. That's mental.
The reality is that our political system has been stitched up to the extent that the vast majority of seats are "safe" and only a few actually decide an election. Putting the reluctance of politicians to accept boundary changes into the pot makes it look increasingly like we have a system of patronage and rotten boroughs.
I personally don't think Labour have anything to crow about in this scenario. They're not doing anything about the inherent unfairness that means votes in the Isle of Wight are worth so much less than anywhere else. Because it isn't in their political interest to do so.
The Tories are bastards, but Labour isn't really much better in supporting a corrupt system.
quote:Once the campaign started, the rules about equal and unbiased coverage (at least in broadcasts) came into effect and started to counteract some of the effects of two years of hysterical, dishonest media reporting of Corbyn and Labour policy. The results of that are plain to see; from about a week in (certainly from the point where the Labour manifesto was leaked), the momentum was all with Labour and if the campaign had gone on another week or two Jeremy Corbyn might now be making cabinet appointments.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
There was a time when the Labour party went into an election expecting to win, and win handsomely. And they did, and the country was a better place for it.
Now, not getting beaten too badly seems to be a cause of celebration!
Labour, having a perfect campaign, lost against a truly dire Tory campaign. Next time they won't be so lucky.
In the end, it's four more years of slog for the most vulnerable.
It's time for Labour to play to win.
quote:So different, so very different from the Labour Party.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Another example of the Tory Party putting their own needs above the interests of other parts of the UK (or, indeed the interests of the whole UK).
quote:I see two aides have already taken the fall to save Mrs May. A week might be a bit short. My guess is that guerrilla tactics are already in play within the Tory party. It's only polite to give them first crack.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, I guess we'll see if it can survive the week. If it can, then I suggest guerilla tactics are needed.
quote:You don't get to claim that. Seven years ago, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems put the interests of the country ahead of their own interest, and you and people like you savaged them mercilessly, and probably effectively ended the Lib Dems as a political force for a generation.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Another example of the Tory Party putting their own needs above the interests of other parts of the UK (or, indeed the interests of the whole UK).
quote:I want to challenge this and ask for some data.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry, Alan, but as a person who is not aligned with either of them, they are both just as guilty as each other on this. Indeed, in the past - and my memories go back well over 50 years - the Labour Party has frequently been even worse on this.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:You don't get to claim that. Seven years ago, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems put the interests of the country ahead of their own interest, and you and people like you savaged them mercilessly, and probably effectively ended the Lib Dems as a political force for a generation.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Another example of the Tory Party putting their own needs above the interests of other parts of the UK (or, indeed the interests of the whole UK).
If that's what you do to decent people that work with the Tories, the consequence is that the Tories only have the indecent people available.
quote:I think as Cable's comments later made clear they didn't even believe this. It's possible they went into it with the vague idea that they could enact some LibDem policy - in the event they didn't do much (in spite of the fact that the way the system is set up would imply that the minority partner would get a disproportionate amount of influence purely because of their ability to veto).
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
This is simply not true, despite Tim Farron making this claim again, yesterday. They did not put the nation's interest first; even if they honestly believe they did.
quote:But academies and tuition fees didn't serve a political interest either. They were ideological, and wrong headed, but not venal in that particular way.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not clear what you are asking, but surely academy schools (originally devised under Blair) and tuition fees were arguably not in the national interest and instead were set up for ideological reasons.
quote:Most of the time whichever party is in power acts in what they believe to be the best interests of the country. They will, inevitably, face criticism from those who are not their supporters that their policies are not going to work. But, they honestly believe that that is the case.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:So different, so very different from the Labour Party.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Another example of the Tory Party putting their own needs above the interests of other parts of the UK (or, indeed the interests of the whole UK).
I'm sorry, Alan, but as a person who is not aligned with either of them, they are both just as guilty as each other on this. Indeed, in the past - and my memories go back well over 50 years - the Labour Party has frequently been even worse on this. And both of them seem to take it for granted that the purpose of an election is to give them the number of seats that enables them to impose their pet nostra on the rest of us, in the interests of their own supporters.
quote:Can someone explain, or point me to an explainer on, Scottish sectarianism? Thanks.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It could also be a step backwards in trying to reduce sectarianism in parts of Scotland - though the impact of that is far less severe than the potential for disaster in NI.
quote:Actually the point of an election is to enact legislation that has long lasting effect. Yes you have to be in government; but in a minority situation, just because you are in doesn't mean you can do what you want.
Originally posted by Cod:
It is a fair comment. Labour lost. The point of fighting a general election isn't to make gains: it's to form the next government.
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:No.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:You don't get to claim that. Seven years ago, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems put the interests of the country ahead of their own interest, and you and people like you savaged them mercilessly, and probably effectively ended the Lib Dems as a political force for a generation.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Another example of the Tory Party putting their own needs above the interests of other parts of the UK (or, indeed the interests of the whole UK).
If that's what you do to decent people that work with the Tories, the consequence is that the Tories only have the indecent people available.
This is simply not true, despite Tim Farron making this claim again, yesterday. They did not put the nation's interest first; even if they honestly believe they did.
The UK was not on the verge of becoming Greece or whatever other rubbish and the Tory austerity was the worst possible medicine for this misdiagnosis.
I won't speak for Alan, but for me, the problem with the Lib Dems is that enabled a terrible government and 7 years of austerity.
This is not about opinion and perspective, this is evidence; the theoretical basis of austerity has crumbled to dust and the evidence is overwhelming. It never works.
They may have meant well but they were not acting in the national interest.
AFZ
quote:*Cough* IDS *Cough
Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Thatcher the last Tory leader ever not to be brought down trying to appease swivel eyed right wing anti-Europeans?
quote:God knows, although the amount of wailing from Labour voters on Twitter post McDonnell this morning reasserting that Labour is committed to the ending of freedom of movement does rather signpost that it's still very much what's coming down the line.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What price hard Brexit now? It was always bizarre and impossible, but I doubt that May can carry it through now. The queen of chaos reigns (chicken) supreme.
quote:I've got a very uneasy feeling about all this - I think that when the dust has settled (a bit, such as and to the extent that it can) both Labour and the Conservatives will realise that they've managed to pull together mutually exclusive and contradictory coalitions behind their respective vote shares.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A friend said to me that Labour has to keep its UKIP wing happy, and therefore has to reject single market. This would be comical, well it is, if it wasn't also surreal and barking mad. There we are, the silly season has now been extended to a full twelve months. And it's free!
quote:Hence why I said if there was a GE soon/now they'd walk it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Survation has Labour six points clear today. Just saying...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:I would expect Labour to have a honeymoon for a while. But for how long? They will privately expect to win next time, but presumably, won't brag, fatal mistake.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Survation has Labour six points clear today. Just saying...
quote:I did make this suggestion above - they don't have to mess up, they just have to make unpopular decisions and get voted down on anything that looks progressive.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A cunning plan being touted is that Tories let Labour in with a minority govt, and hope they mess up big time, thus allowing Tories back in.
However, this is a massive gamble. Any election could easily see Labour with a majority.
It's Clint Eastwood time - do you feel lucky, punk?
quote:Seems a bit too risky to go for to me. The one that I think *might* have some traction is trying to run as is on everything but Brexit, where they stand up and make a full and open offer to Labour to come in on the negotiations - Starmer as deputy at the department, etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A cunning plan being touted is that Tories let Labour in with a minority govt, and hope they mess up big time, thus allowing Tories back in.
However, this is a massive gamble. Any election could easily see Labour with a majority.
It's Clint Eastwood time - do you feel lucky, punk?
quote:A Labour minority government would get some of the more urgent business done, pull the trigger, and slap down another, fully-costed manifesto.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A cunning plan being touted is that Tories let Labour in with a minority govt, and hope they mess up big time, thus allowing Tories back in.
However, this is a massive gamble. Any election could easily see Labour with a majority.
It's Clint Eastwood time - do you feel lucky, punk?
quote:Now that we are on p25, this question from p24 risks being lost.
Can someone explain, or point me to an explainer on, Scottish sectarianism? Thanks.
quote:Reminds me of 'Arold in 66, after he'd scraped home in 64, he just stuck his pipe in his gob, and he was home free. And he came back in 74, and then, well, 74. Then the light began to fade, I guess, poor old sod.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:A Labour minority government would get some of the more urgent business done, pull the trigger, and slap down another, fully-costed manifesto.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A cunning plan being touted is that Tories let Labour in with a minority govt, and hope they mess up big time, thus allowing Tories back in.
However, this is a massive gamble. Any election could easily see Labour with a majority.
It's Clint Eastwood time - do you feel lucky, punk?
quote:Old people vote in greater percentages and numbers. Old people tend to vote Conservative.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
TLDR for the above post - the Tories have just run the most inept campaign of any party in my lifetime, under undoubtedly the worst leader, and still managed to stumble out ahead on points against a born campaigner.
quote:Have you been taking lessons from Martin60?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Reminds me of 'Arold in 66, after he'd scraped home in 64, he just stuck his pipe in his gob, and he was home free. And he came back in 74, and then, well, 74. Then the light began to fade, I guess, poor old sod.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:A Labour minority government would get some of the more urgent business done, pull the trigger, and slap down another, fully-costed manifesto.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A cunning plan being touted is that Tories let Labour in with a minority govt, and hope they mess up big time, thus allowing Tories back in.
However, this is a massive gamble. Any election could easily see Labour with a majority.
It's Clint Eastwood time - do you feel lucky, punk?
quote:Well, I read with interest and thought it was plausible until I got to this bit - firstly, what about their own Leave voters, and secondly, what if the EU puts out a statement in response saying that's not an option, or "ok, but no opt-outs and sign here to adopt the Euro"?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
After nearly 2 years of running them ragged, Labour lights the blue fuse and sets in place a surprise manifesto saying that the EU deal is a shite one and that they're going to declare to the EU that they're not going to leave after all - so the election becomes effectively a second referendum..
quote:The EU have already said it is an option. Simply declare that we're not leaving after all. Sorry chaps, the Tories went off on some weird flight of fancy.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well, I read with interest and thought it was plausible until I got to this bit - firstly, what about their own Leave voters, and secondly, what if the EU puts out a statement in response saying that's not an option, or "ok, but no opt-outs and sign here to adopt the Euro"?
quote:If we can just resume on the same terms as before then there might be something in it, if there are caveats or new things to sign up to (currency, etc) then I wouldn't be anywhere near as confident.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The EU have already said it is an option. Simply declare that we're not leaving after all. Sorry chaps, the Tories went off on some weird flight of fancy.
quote:IANAL, but as far as I understand, those who wrote Article 50 say that as we can declare it enacted, we can also declare it un-enacted. Given that we're still in until we're out, it is hard to see how we'd have to renegotiate a position vis-a-vis the position we have in the EU, given that they're what we have in hand.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
If we can just resume on the same terms as before then there might be something in it, if there are caveats or new things to sign up to (currency, etc) then I wouldn't be anywhere near as confident.
quote:You'd think so, but I've been in some very Brexity places since Thursday and the sample chat in the pubs of the M62 corridor is "I voted Labour because when it comes down to it I'll get more from them than the Tories and they'll still give us a hard Brexit."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if the Brexit fervour will start to fade? May has sucked the air out of it, to start with, and UKIP looks like a faded balloon. Who has the energy now to rage against EU?
quote:No I got that - one of those times I wish this place had a like button then I could have just shorthanded it and you'd have known.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry that made more sense in my head than seeing it written down. I mean we're in the EU, we don't lose stuff until we're out.
quote:no - he's been soaking up attack after attack, humiliation, excoriation and still getting on with it. I would imagine the thinking is no different now than it was before the election. There's no point in destroying more than one person in the SoS for Health role if you're not going to change the overall direction.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Can someone explain how May saw the campaign and the vote - the hammering the tories took over the state of the NHS - and thought, I know, I'll keep the same health secretary, that'll help ?
Even if she felt she had to keep rhyming slang in the cabinet, wouldn't it have made sense to at least move him ?
quote:You ignore the possibility that what he's been told to do is also what he wants to do - given his background, I can imagine that the particular set of policies could be ones that he finds himself in agreement with (in the same sense that if you are surrounded by bankers then a financial instrument is often the way you try and solve everything - see 'dementia tax').
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
But if you're not going to (and IMO this strongly suggests that he's doing as he's told rather than what he wants to do)
quote:true - wasn't doing it consciously though. either way no one else in their right mind would touch it.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You ignore the possibility that what he's been told to do is also what he wants to do - given his background, I can imagine that the particular set of policies could be ones that he finds himself in agreement with (in the same sense that if you are surrounded by bankers then a financial instrument is often the way you try and solve everything - see 'dementia tax').
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
But if you're not going to (and IMO this strongly suggests that he's doing as he's told rather than what he wants to do)
quote:Possibly my first ever agreement with George Osborne. A dead woman walking. This is just part of the evidence.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
She has given Michael Gove a job. Michael fucking Gove.
quote:Possibly. Depending on how venal they were I suppose.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
true - wasn't doing it consciously though. either way no one else in their right mind would touch it.
quote:I'm by no means an expert either, but I've encountered sectarianism in the wild (as it were) around here. There are elements of the Church of Scotland that still harbour some pretty rabid anti-Catholic sentiments, to the point where the minister here had to preface the creed with a reminder/reassurance that catholic means universal and doesn't refer to Rome.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Iam Climacus:
quote:Now that we are on p25, this question from p24 risks being lost.
Can someone explain, or point me to an explainer on, Scottish sectarianism? Thanks.
I'm not the persaon to answer, as I live in a part of Scotlnd largely untouched by sectarianism. The main areas affected are those on the west coast of Scotland which experienced the greatest Irish Catholic immigration in the late C19th / early C20th. By the late C20th, sectarianism had moved away from the churches and was focussed on football (Glasgow Rangers = Protestant, Glasgow Celtic = Catholic, Edinburgh Hearts =Protestant, Edinburgh Hibernian = Catholic, Dundee United = Catholic, Dundee FC=Protestant). Then the football clubs and the law started to crack down on it. E.g. sectarian songs are banned from football grounds, and from public transport carrying fans to football matches.
It's still there, though.
Someone living in the Central Belt will be able to give a better answer.
quote:The next Prime Minister re-enters Cabinet...?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
She has given Michael Gove a job. Michael fucking Gove.
quote:My understanding was that considered opinion said that within the 2-year period, one could revoke an article 50 declaration and go back to the status quo (at least in legal terms - clearly you're going to be Norman no-mates at the EU table for a long time.)
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
what if the EU puts out a statement in response saying that's not an option, or "ok, but no opt-outs and sign here to adopt the Euro"?
quote:From this side of the Channel:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My understanding was that considered opinion said that within the 2-year period, one could revoke an article 50 declaration and go back to the status quo
quote:I know you read the clause following the one you quoted.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Brexit sucks, but going back on invoking article 50 has about as much political credibility in the eyes of everyone else as Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement.
quote:It is certainly the opinion of Mr. Donald Tusk.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd love to see what "considered opinion" that is.
quote:This is exactly the same nonsense the Red Tories were spouting during this "perfect campaign" (whatever that means).
Originally posted by Sarah G:
There was a time when the Labour party went into an election expecting to win, and win handsomely. And they did, and the country was a better place for it.
Now, not getting beaten too badly seems to be a cause of celebration!
Labour, having a perfect campaign, lost against a truly dire Tory campaign. Next time they won't be so lucky.
In the end, it's four more years of slog for the most vulnerable.
It's time for Labour to play to win.
quote:Technically, "retaining the benefits of the single market and customs union" aren't necessarily the same as remaining within the single market and customs union. But, it seems very difficult to see how that's possible without actually remaining within the single market and customs union. They left themselves some wriggle room in the wording, but unless they can produce a roadmap of how they can square the circle of retaining benefits without retaining membership the only option available for them is to campaign to remain in.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
This is the platform they were elected on.
quote:Which isn't functionally different from freedom of movement. So, what's the benefit of the costs of changing the system to something functionally identical?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I return to a point I made elsewhere, there is nothing to stop you having a points based immigration system and then give EU citizens automatic maximum points by virtue of their being EU citizens.
quote:I think that assuming you can get something over someone whose negotiation skills have been learnt during a sectarian conflict is rather hopeful to say the least.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Eventually the DUP will realise they've been DUPed and that the Tories had no intention of giving them anything ever.
quote:Exactly my point. I think the second option is untenable for all the reasons free movement is untenable and the points system is far too slow unresponsive for many areas of the economy. (Only works in Australia because they want migration to increase.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which isn't functionally different from freedom of movement. So, what's the benefit of the costs of changing the system to something functionally identical?
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I return to a point I made elsewhere, there is nothing to stop you having a points based immigration system and then give EU citizens automatic maximum points by virtue of their being EU citizens.
quote:My guess is that what you suggest might well be where we end up. It will probably mean a really clunky system that satisfies no-one but there you go.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well, in theory it give any UK government in the future the option to reduce immigration by changing the points allocation should they wish to do so.
I could see a deal with the EU that said something like, as long as we give maximum points you give us tariff free access. Or a deal that says we'll give permits to any EU citizen with a job offer (which some EU states do even under free movement rules) who isn't on a terror watch list - in exchange no tariff but we will do x, y, z that the EU want.
I think this is where the statements of leaving the single market vs, amended access to the single market mesh.
quote:Quite so. Which makes one wonder whether there will ever be a deal with the DUP. They're already playing their cards close to their chest and obviously are relishing the position in the limelight.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think that assuming you can get something over someone whose negotiation skills have been learnt during a sectarian conflict is rather hopeful to say the least.
quote:When he tried for the PM's job one commentator said the idea that Michael Gove could attract a popular vote was something that only made sense inside the Westminster echo chamber. On the other hand the vilified Corbyn has shown that someone 20 odd points adrift and the bane of the parliamentary party can come within a whisker of pinching the job.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
She has given Michael Gove a job. Michael fucking Gove.
quote:Seems to me that even if this is true, there is quite a difference between (a) talking to the DUP when there is a faint possibility of a coalition and concluding that they're a bunch of arseholes and (b) telling everyone that you definitely have their support before properly talking to them and whilst everyone is talking about the extent to which they're arseholes.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.
quote:The name that you oroginally went with would make for a good Abbott and Costello skit.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I meant Andrew Marr. Damned autofill!
quote:Firstly what mr cheesy said. Secondly in the case of 2010 we only know about this second hand - at best - and therefore we don't know what level of seriousness was attached to that plan.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.
quote:It's embarrassingly clear that Anglican't is very hard on any link between Corbyn and the IRA, however ephemeral, while putting the telescope to his blind eye with regards to the DUP and the Loyalist paramilitaries, which is right there in plain sight.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I assume your previous arguments re terrorism a few pages back were making an emotive point for political purposes, rather than anything more substantive.
quote:Don't think that holds up. The arseholeness of the DUP has been well known for a long time. You don't learn that they're arseholes by talking to them - you learn whether you can do a deal with them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Seems to me that even if this is true, there is quite a difference between (a) talking to the DUP when there is a faint possibility of a coalition and concluding that they're a bunch of arseholes and (b) telling everyone that you definitely have their support before properly talking to them and whilst everyone is talking about the extent to which they're arseholes.
quote:Arguably nobody should be talking to them ever about forming a government. I certainly subscribe to that view.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Don't think that holds up. The arseholeness of the DUP has been well known for a long time. You don't learn that they're arseholes by talking to them - you learn whether you can do a deal with them.
quote:Yes. Yes, they are.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Tories are doing deals with people who owe their parliamentary seats to terrorist influence and patronage. That's it. How else are we supposed to frame this?
quote:Pretty sure that's not actually true.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Secondly, I find it amusing that after several years of Scotland whining about having a Conservative government imposed on it by England it's now the Scottish voters who have given us a Conservative government. Kinda puts paid to the primary motivation behind independence, doesn't it?
quote:.. and in theory at least they would be more in favour of direct rule.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The only problem with this analysis could be that it is too intelligent for the DUP.
quote:I don't know enough about how they operate on the ground, I thought they were generally in favour of devolution - particularly since they had inbuilt power in the NI Executive. I'm not sure how well it would play in NI if they're seen to be bulldozing Stormont because they have an advantage in London.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. and in theory at least they would be more in favour of direct rule.
quote:In a human sense she is deserving of pity and sympathy. Although, of course, she has brought this on herself by her own hubris. I think I posted this before but hey, it's relevant. It is sad for her. I balance that against all the harm this government has done over the past 7 years to the most vulnerable in our country and against the huge risks they are taking with Brexit.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure if he is being unduly sympathetic to her, although later he does say that she may be determined to fight her way back, and win another election. Unlikely. But the other day, I was surprised to feel pity for her, when I saw a picture of her coming back from church. She looks wounded.
quote:Diane Abbott has a majority of about 35K, which is certainly a huge majority, but is bigger than precisely two unusual consituencies (see below). If you mean that her majority is more than the number of people that voted in other constituencies, you'll add some more - mostly the smaller Welsh ones.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Two things became very apparent to me overnight: first that there is a huge disparity between the numbers of voters in different constituencies. Which just seems wrong - Dianne Abbott has a majority which is more than the total number of voters in a lot of constituencies.
quote:Thanks. I didn't think it would actually happen though.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What I find interesting psychologically, is that she may be deserving of pity, but that's not why I feel pity. In a sense, I can't control that, and it has no rational basis (I think), but is to do with empathy and sympathy. Going o/t.
Congratulations on the article - very prophetic. Any tips for Ascot?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:According to the Worcester Cathedral and Archive Blog, it isn't that simple.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Vellum is a better bet for archiving than paper. That's why original copies of the Magna Carta still exist.
quote:I would be interested to know what those who share this view think should be happening instead. The pound is falling. Business confidence is gone. The UK risks losing its credit status. The markets hate uncertainty. So somebody has to try and form a government. It's quite likely that there will be another election later this year, and equally likely that Labour can win it, but we aren't there now. Corbyn's talk of forming a minority government is nonsense. The arithmetic of the House of Commons doesn't allow it. As the Tories are the largest party and nobody but the DUP are willing to work with them, they have no choice but to pursue this course. Does anyone have a better idea that is serious?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Arguably nobody should be talking to them ever about forming a government. I certainly subscribe to that view.
quote:Arlene Foster is a tough negotiator. She needs to be to go head to head with Sinn Fein. Does anybody believe that she really expects to extract such a concession from any British government?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We might see the Drumcree march back on.
quote:Another election pronto. If the only option is getting into bed with extremists, then it is the best one.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I would be interested to know what those who share this view think should be happening instead. The pound is falling. Business confidence is gone. The UK risks losing its credit status. The markets hate uncertainty.
quote:Try to work as a minority government. Got to be better than giving 10 people utterly unrepresentative of any population this side of the Isle of Man such disproportionate influence.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I would be interested to know what those who share this view think should be happening instead. The pound is falling. Business confidence is gone. The UK risks losing its credit status. The markets hate uncertainty. So somebody has to try and form a government. It's quite likely that there will be another election later this year, and equally likely that Labour can win it, but we aren't there now. Corbyn's talk of forming a minority government is nonsense. The arithmetic of the House of Commons doesn't allow it. As the Tories are the largest party and nobody but the DUP are willing to work with them, they have no choice but to pursue this course. Does anyone have a better idea that is serious?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Arguably nobody should be talking to them ever about forming a government. I certainly subscribe to that view.
quote:We have so little experience of coalitions in this country that our political system is totally adversarial. Labour, in the position they are now in, would far prefer the UK economy go down the pan and blame it on the Tories to give them advantage next time around, than to try to rescue the economy in the national interest. The Tories would do the same if the situation was reversed. Perhaps we should take a lesson from the Irish Republic, where last year, after much wrangling, there was the first ever coalition between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, parties which haven't yet forgiven each other for the 1922 civil war! Admittedly Ireland has much more experience of coalition than we have, but I would love to see PR make it the norm here as well.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
what do you think are the chances of a cluster of Tory MPs supporting the policies of a minority Labour government, or of a cluster of Labour MPs supporting the policies of a minority Tory government?
quote:Right, exactly. Form a minority government which has sufficient support in the Commons. If you can't, let someone else try. If they can't, election.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Try to work as a minority government. Got to be better than giving 10 people utterly unrepresentative of any population this side of the Isle of Man such disproportionate influence.
quote:It's not nonsense, but it is going to be pretty hard to pull off with multiple parties they'd need to get on board. There is pretty bad blood between Labour and the SNP and worse between Labour and PC, so they'd have to be prepared to find acceptable accommodations. Possible, but difficult.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Not sure why Corbyn's idea of forming a minority government is nonsense. Nobody wants an election and the Tories wouldn't dare force one.
I don't think Corbyn is calling their bluff so he must believe he can do it - without the support of other parties.
quote:I don't really see how a cross-party group would work, sounds good in theory but impossible in practice.
Perhaps if Theresa May got a cross-party group to negotiate Brexit it would take the heat off her. And I'm not wanting to find a way out of the mess for her. I wonder whether a cross-party team might, in the end, agree to put their Brexit deal to the public. Alternatively, if a cross-party team said that a suitable deal is not possible - bingo we stay in the EU (says he hopefully if naively).
quote:
I don't really see how a cross-party group would work, sounds good in theory but impossible in practice.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:More particularly, I doubt that anything the tories propose is likely to result in rescuing the economy so much as lining their own pockets and shafting the economy in the process, based on their form over the last 7 years (and the 18 they were last in power).
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We have so little experience of coalitions in this country that our political system is totally adversarial. Labour, in the position they are now in, would far prefer the UK economy go down the pan and blame it on the Tories to give them advantage next time around, than to try to rescue the economy in the national interest.
quote:Or, an example from basically every other country in Europe (and many beyond). Coalition, minority government, and other non-adversarial approaches to government are the norm. Or, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. I'm going to assume that no one will suggest that Angela Merkel is a weak leader because she doesn't lead a party with an outright majority?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We have so little experience of coalitions in this country that our political system is totally adversarial. ... Perhaps we should take a lesson from the Irish Republic
quote:My response is still
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:It is certainly the opinion of Mr. Donald Tusk.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd love to see what "considered opinion" that is.
Quoted here.
quote:The Queens Speech - however - is not printed or handwritten on vellum.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
"One of the reasons for the delay is also believed to be because the speech has to be written on goat's skin parchment paper, which takes a few days to dry"
quote:A story I heard today from someone who should know has it that the Breton farmers and politicians, with different concerns and affiliations, would get on the train to Paris to attend negotiations with central government at successive stations in Brittany and argue amongst themselves until they got to Le Mans.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Coalition, minority government, and other non-adversarial approaches to government are the norm.
quote:There are a lot of cross-party committees in Parliament. I'm not a politics geek so I don't know how they work but I assume they must be basically functional.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't really see how a cross-party group would work, sounds good in theory but impossible in practice.
quote:From what I can gather select-committees are often parliament working at its best. It is about finding common ground and proposing practical solutions. A large amount of parliamentary business is not ideologically based but essentially managerial. This is no bad thing.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:There are a lot of cross-party committees in Parliament. I'm not a politics geek so I don't know how they work but I assume they must be basically functional.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't really see how a cross-party group would work, sounds good in theory but impossible in practice.
(I don't know how many of the current party leaderships have sat on them.)
quote:My take would be pretty similar to yours Dafyd. From what I can gather select-committees are often parliament working at its best. It is about finding common ground and proposing practical solutions. A large amount of parliamentary business is not ideologically based but essentially managerial. This is no bad thing.
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:There are a lot of cross-party committees in Parliament. I'm not a politics geek so I don't know how they work but I assume they must be basically functional.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb] I don't really see how a cross-party group would work, sounds good in theory but impossible in practice.
(I don't know how many of the current party leaderships have sat on them.)
quote:Yeah I can see the problem. However, maybe it could serve a sort of preliminary advisory roll. There is probably a great deal of common ground between the remainers and the soft brexiteers. Also common ground could perhaps be established on the need to explain just how important immigration is to our economy. Again most in the house know that the whole 'we'll get immigration down below 100,000' is just bollocks. Especially if our country is to cope with the aging population challenges.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course it is true that there are cross-party committees. But these usually are intended to keep the government to account in various areas.
It'd be nice to believe that a cross-party committee could set national policy which the government then accepted, but I can't see it happening in this situation.
quote:I've been meaning to come back on this, but have been busy over the last few days. The rest of the thread has since run on for several pages. Pressures over the rest of the week will probably preclude me from getting back any further. However, here goes. It will be quite long. My apologies.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:I want to challenge this and ask for some data.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry, Alan, but as a person who is not aligned with either of them, they are both just as guilty as each other on this. Indeed, in the past - and my memories go back well over 50 years - the Labour Party has frequently been even worse on this.
Accepting and admitting my own bias (which is well known on the ship) this does not ring true for me at first reading. I am not saying that you are wrong, just that I need you to provide something more to persuade me.
Just as it is ridiculous and dangerous to fall into the trap of thinking one's own side angels and the others devils, so it is equally so to declare they're all the same; that just leads to unsustainable false equivalents.
Let me give you a pertinent counter example. Whilst Mo Mowland is rightly credited for her excellent work in the lead-up to the Good Friday Agreement, it was stuck and never would have happened without the personal intervention of Tony Blair. He was warned not to fly to Belfast as the likely failure would cost him too much personal political capital. He went because he wasn't prepared to not try at this historic opportunity.
Whatever else he did, Blair took a big risk and got that one right.
So, examples please?
quote:I still think when the dust settles that Labour will be shown to be in as much of a mess as the Tories to be honest.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
For that reason I think Labour will be very circumspect about getting involved in any Brexit Commission. They will want the Tories to own the Brexit mess, whilst trying to avoid annoying their leave-voting supporters.
quote:I tend to discount things like this without actual examples being given - twitter is pretty much the wild west and trolls exist on all sides.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
*and I'm prepared to accept that's a misrepresentation of what Corbyn wants, but it's not a misrepresentation of what his more vocal/dangerous/frankly scary social media warriors want.
quote:Yeah, because that worked so well for the Lib Dems in the not too distant past. Let's face it, if there is a cross-party commission for Brexit the tabloid press will busy itself flinging all the mud at the non-Tory members and claiming that the Tories would have done a lot better if their hands hadn't been tied by the other parties.
I think it could happen because it detoxes things for all the parties, if everybody's involved then it's harder to make electoral capital out of a less than perfect deal.
quote:Here's one of the nicest people in the lobby:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I tend to discount things like this without actual examples being given - twitter is pretty much the wild west and trolls exist on all sides.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
*and I'm prepared to accept that's a misrepresentation of what Corbyn wants, but it's not a misrepresentation of what his more vocal/dangerous/frankly scary social media warriors want.
quote:At what point will they try and elect another leader? Doing this before the Brexit negotiations will mean that their split over Brexit re-emerges, especially as any Remain MPs will be want to push back on May's definition of Brexit as a Hard Brexit. If they run their contest before negotiations, then it can be portrayed as further time wasting, if they try to run it during the negotiations then they'll be seen as chaotic, after the negotiations they may well be seen as economically incompetent anyway.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's clearly worse for the Tories, but if they can somehow cling on for 12-18 months, and get a less disastrous leader
quote:Don't dispute any of that, but what I will say, based purely on anecdata and spending the last few weeks on the front line of all of this, that regardless of what the manifesto says, and regardless of what the people at the top of the Labour party may personally want, I am genuinely worried that they are playing with fire and a hard core of people who want to go much further than "classical social democratic policies."
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Secondly how do you define 'hard core socialism' - it seems likely to me that given the particular economic and political circumstances in which they were brought up the younger voters are more likely in general to swing left, and the kind of classical social-democratic policies which were the core of Corbyn's manifesto are likely to have purchase.
This is in fact what cohort based polling has long shown.
quote:Whereas the gross misrepresentations of Corbyn by both were presumably just trenchant and robust commentary.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Otherwise see the comments under pretty much anything by John Rentoul, Dan Hodges
quote:Personally I think they'll have to do it after the negotiations. And they may well be seen as economically incompetent. Nevertheless, I stand by the point that both Labour and the Conservatives have ended up with frankly unsustainable coalitions of supporters. Labour are hiding it better because they're still playing "we won really."
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:At what point will they try and elect another leader? Doing this before the Brexit negotiations will mean that their split over Brexit re-emerges, especially as any Remain MPs will be want to push back on May's definition of Brexit as a Hard Brexit. If they run their contest before negotiations, then it can be portrayed as further time wasting, if they try to run it during the negotiations then they'll be seen as chaotic, after the negotiations they may well be seen as economically incompetent anyway.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's clearly worse for the Tories, but if they can somehow cling on for 12-18 months, and get a less disastrous leader
quote:how are you defining gross misrepresentations?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Whereas the gross misrepresentations of Corbyn by both were presumably just trenchant and robust commentary.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Otherwise see the comments under pretty much anything by John Rentoul, Dan Hodges
quote:Really? What forces are those? I don't see large numbers of people calling for the policies of the revolutionary left, outside the normal set of hotheads.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
If it was just csdp then I would be happy enough, what with being just about in the "young" cohort myself.
I can only reiterate, I am genuinely scared by some of the forces that have been unleashed.
quote:And seriously, just look at the comments under anything by any female left journalist since forever.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Whereas the gross misrepresentations of Corbyn by both were presumably just trenchant and robust commentary.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Otherwise see the comments under pretty much anything by John Rentoul, Dan Hodges
quote:I think that's a homonym for 'lie'. If you're an adult needing help with that concept, then we've reached a pretty poor state.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:how are you defining gross misrepresentations?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Whereas the gross misrepresentations of Corbyn by both were presumably just trenchant and robust commentary.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Otherwise see the comments under pretty much anything by John Rentoul, Dan Hodges
quote:As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
Originally posted by Boogie:
The tabloid press has had its day. People, especially young people, saw through them this time.
quote:There has been at least one meme going round the last few days pointing out that the traditional argument against PR (or other system that increases the proportionality of the elected chamber) was that it allows small, extremist groups a seat in government. Which is exactly what has happened, under FPTP. A more proportional system would have made the medium sized parties (SNP/PC, LibDems) the king-makers and not needed the smaller parties (eg Greens) and especially not the terrorist backed DUP.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Oh, and I think this is the election that has finally persuaded me of the merits of proportional representation.
quote:Young people get their news from twitter and Facebook. Not from the Mail or the Sun.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
Originally posted by Boogie:
The tabloid press has had its day. People, especially young people, saw through them this time.
quote:So unlike the shining beacons of Truth that are the Sun and Daily Heil... oh wait, Doc Tor has already made this point.
As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
quote:True, then she goes and puts Gove back in the cabinet
Originally posted by Jane R:
Enoch:quote:So unlike the shining beacons of Truth that are the Sun and Daily Heil... oh wait, Doc Tor has already made this point.
As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
I actually feel sorry for May today, and I never thought I'd say this. She has accepted full responsibility for the mess we're in, which I think is unfair when it was Cameron who started steering for the iceberg by calling for the referendum in the first place. An iceberg that was carefully manufactured by the anti-EU propaganda fed to the public by the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
Guilty of trying to turn the Titanic and making matters worse, yes. Not single-handedly responsible for the whole mess.
quote:A lie directly states something untrue. For example, that leaving the EU will mean £350 per week more for the NHS.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think that's a homonym for 'lie'. If you're an adult needing help with that concept, then we've reached a pretty poor state.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
how are you defining gross misrepresentations?
quote:Ah, you got my reference to the Breitbart of the Left.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Young people get their news from twitter and Facebook. Not from the Mail or the Sun.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
Originally posted by Boogie:
The tabloid press has had its day. People, especially young people, saw through them this time.
You might not like it. You might decry the journalistic standards of websites such as the Canary. But that's what happened, and will continue to happen. Labour, and Corbyn especially, outflanked the (almost universally hostile) press and did something different. Please acknowledge that.
quote:I'm genuinely struggling to parse this as anything other than two wrongs making a right.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, okay. As soon as the internet makes it possible for the Left to organise some sort of fight back against decades of Right-wing abuse of the press, it's time to call for temperance and self-control.
No.
quote:Er, I think that's any talking off the table for a while then - my *side*????
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's as if the damage done to the body politic by decades of Right-wing hegemony in the press never happened. The lack of self-awareness on your part is truly astounding.
It's as if the kid you'd been bullying throughout school has suddenly planted one on your nose, and you run to Teacher because he had the temerity to hit back.
Let's do a deal. You sort your side out first. When you've disarmed the Mail and the Sun, then we can talk. Certainly not before.
quote:Dude, you even seen your avatar?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Self awareness? For shame.
quote:Not to mention that social media, such as Facebook and Twitter are tools for tools, as well as the left.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Oh, okay. As soon as the internet makes it possible for the Left to organise some sort of fight back against decades of Right-wing abuse of the press, it's time to call for temperance and self-control.
No.
quote:The difference being Facebook is used by the right and left. Murdoch and Dacre are in it for their own good, but their perceived good is on the right and their media presence is for and by the right.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Anyone who thinks Facebook, Mr Murdoch or Mr Dacre are on anyone's side but their own is sadly deluded.
quote:People making this comparison make me think that they've never read Breitbart (not even the headlines).
Originally posted by Enoch:
Ah, you got my reference to the Breitbart of the Left.
quote:Well, the Canary are a bit OTT. But the Right far outdo the Left in crazy, lying media.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:People making this comparison make me think that they've never read Breitbart (not even the headlines).
Originally posted by Enoch:
Ah, you got my reference to the Breitbart of the Left.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the Canary told me a man had bitten a dog, I'd say "well, it's the Canary, so I'll look for corroboration". If the Mail told me a dog had bitten a man, I'd be wondering whether it was even true that dogs had teeth.
quote:More to the point they watch real time videos. So they can see and hear the politicians in action - which will show up those who are not genuine people and give a far truer picture than second hand reporting can. The newspapers miss out on our 'instant news' generation by a mile - for better or worse.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Thus I don't think it surprising that despite the weakness of Internet sources, people increasingly turn to them for news. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing but the answer is for our established media to put their house in order. I am not holding my breath.
quote:Yes, and really the proper comparison would be with something like Guido Fawkes against which the Canary looks relatively sober, and of course Paul Staines is regularly featured in the print and broadcast media, and his fellow traveller - Iain Dale - has gone on to more prominent things.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, the Canary are a bit OTT. But the Right far outdo the Left in crazy, lying media.
quote:I think we now have three or four different types of news source (depending on the line drawn between some of the options below) - a differentiation between "internet" and "newspaper" is not all that helpful.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:More to the point they watch real time videos. So they can see and hear the politicians in action - which will show up those who are not genuine people and give a far truer picture than second hand reporting can. The newspapers miss out on our 'instant news' generation by a mile - for better or worse.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Thus I don't think it surprising that despite the weakness of Internet sources, people increasingly turn to them for news. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing but the answer is for our established media to put their house in order. I am not holding my breath.
quote:That explanation sounds right to me.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
1-4 have one common feature - they have editors. Someone decides what to cover, the reporter is selective in what they say. That will inevitably introduce a bias in what is reported. This may be political, it may be a bias towards what celebrities are up to, or to sports coverage ... what ever.
- We have the traditional newspapers. The medium prevents inclusion of video (unless the editor had been a student at Hogwarts), and there is a delay between the story and the print run, and a further delay for distribution.
- We have TV news, now 24h with on-demand options as well. Obviously with video, and also much closer to real time reporting.
- We have the websites for the traditional newspapers and TV news channels. This allows carrying of breaking news and video for the print media, and additional extensive coverage (especially for the TV news channels).
- We have internet only newspapers, with staff reporters much as a traditional newspaper just that they never actually put anything on paper. Personally I'd roll that in with the internet sites for traditional newspapers, you may think differently.
- Finally we have social media.
). One rarely sees any of the local young mums buying a paper.quote:This would be a great book and I hope he writes it eventually. You could perhaps think of social media as giving a huge shot in the arm to RUMOUR as opposed to journalism.
Originally posted by wabale:
Later he lectured in journalism, but has never quite got round to writing his book about how journalism replaced RUMOUR. He did make the point to his students, he told me, that at the end of the day newspapers have to make money - in order to pay journalists for stories. It’s the journalistic hunger for a good story that we are in danger of losing unless newspapers and other news sources can re-invent themselves.
quote:Up to a point. The idea that we could undermine The Fourth Estate can be used to stop any criticism about the press ever.
Originally posted by wabale:
That explanation sounds right to me.
However, I keep hearing people attacking ‘media’, especially newspapers. We need to be careful, I think, not to undermine The Fourth Estate. Personally I spit teeth every time I see The Daily Mail. However, a few years ago it was the only source of information about what Michael Gove was planning to do to the school History Curriculum. Tory newspapers are sometimes also responsible for investigative journalism, which is a vital task in our democracy, and is partly down to money.
quote:I've a lot of time for Eddie Mair - his interviewing style is very searching, and his pauses to pay out the hanging rope are works of art.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Maybe. But my money is still on BBC Radio 4.
quote:Their foreign coverage will generally be thorough (for the same reason the FT and Economist will be thorough - it's hard to make money/decisions on the back of inaccurate information).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've heard them give senior Tories so much slack recently, compared with their grillings of Labour politicians, that it's almost as if they've given up the pretence of being impartial.
quote:It's quite sad. As a liberal evangelical, he was probably one of the few politicians who I thought shared the majority of my values and opinions. Loved his reference to Isaac Watts in his resignation speech.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Farron quits. Interesting: I thought he had quite a good campaign.
quote:Is that so relevant? If the DUP are so toxic (and I'm not saying they aren't) then presumably to even broach a deal with them would be unthinkable? According to the Hillary Clinton e-mails, an 'economic package' was discussed. One of the men in and around those meetings (Alastair Campbell) is one of those now touring TV studios telling everyone how awful the prospect of a pact with the DUP, hence my pondering.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Firstly what mr cheesy said. Secondly in the case of 2010 we only know about this second hand - at best - and therefore we don't know what level of seriousness was attached to that plan.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Taking a moment to ponder whether there would be the same kind of meltdown if Labour's attempts to do deals with the DUP in 2010 and again in 2015 had come to anything.
quote:
Lastly, it's the Conservatives that have run with the argument that a vote for Labour was actually a vote to be governed by the interests of a smaller part of the UK (in that case Scotland) and most recently that a vote for Labour was a vote to be governed by people with ties to terrorism.
quote:Not at all.
I assume your previous arguments re terrorism a few pages back were making an emotive point for political purposes, rather than anything more substantive.
quote:I've always been a bit sniffy about social media and elections, but it certainly seems that i) Labour produced far better social media pieces / products* and ii) used it far more effectively to reach voters and actually encourage them to get out and vote. It'll be interesting to see whether this is a trend that continues. 2017 could be a game changer.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Young people get their news from twitter and Facebook. Not from the Mail or the Sun.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:As distinct from Facebook, Twitter, and certain news websites that present themselves as select groups of journalists who claim to have a special integrity and to be the only people who really know what is going on?
Originally posted by Boogie:
The tabloid press has had its day. People, especially young people, saw through them this time.
You might not like it. You might decry the journalistic standards of websites such as the Canary. But that's what happened, and will continue to happen. Labour, and Corbyn especially, outflanked the (almost universally hostile) press and did something different. Please acknowledge that.
quote:I can't think of one. "Tweet" seems to be the preferred word for something sent out on twitter, but for Facebook and other such sites I think people just say "post" or "posting".
*is there a generic term for a piece of social media?
quote:On the one hand 'no', because I don't carry a torch on for the Blairites. On the other hand, yes, because we don't know the provenance of the claim.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is that so relevant?
quote:Right, so as a result of not enough people voting Tory, the Tories are forced to enact the very strategms they warned against in very shrill terms.
This is true. I suppose - very paradoxically - they were right. After all, if more people had voted Tory we wouldn't be in this mess...
quote:I look forward your upcoming pages of posts with suitably serious furrowed brow on the topic of the Tory pact with the DUP.
Not at all.
quote:Hello totalitarianism!
After all, if more people had voted Tory we wouldn't be in this mess...
quote:This is exactly what he tried to do, but he was not permitted to do it. He was criticised for not making a judgement, and forced to pronounce on an issue he would rather not have made any judgement upon.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Tim Farron would have been well-advised to echo a more prominent (and perhaps wilier) Christian - 'Who am I to judge?'
quote:True, but it seems rather arcane to judge a man by a standard that he obviously doesn't live by. He has voted for gay marriage (amongst other liberal causes), so why is there a problem if he is personally/spiritually squeamish about it?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This is probably the case. The problem is that the whole topic is extremely toxic; LGBT+ people and their allies have reason to be suspicious of the political ambitions of anyone who considers their sexual relationships to be inherently sinful; history tells them to be wary.
quote:I'm pretty sure it is virtue signaling. Easier to go after an individual about his personal faith position than to examine voting records.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because they knew it would get people talking and attract traffic?
quote:Ultimately to be a party leader, you need to model what your party believes in and show that you think it's good idea and that you're positive about it. Suppose you lead the Green Party and you won't say that fracking is wrong, however hard you're pressed, indeed you have shares in a company that fracks, and personally you never recycle and think it's a waste of time, though it's fine if other people want to do it...
But as a gay man, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views.
Homophobic attitudes have done enormous damage to our society and to so many millions of citizens over many years. Children are bullied, and some have even taken their lives, and still do. These attitudes are wholly unacceptable to a true liberal – as unacceptable as racism or sexism.
You do not remove homophobia from society by communicating as a political leader that same sex relationships are immoral, but should be “tolerated”.
It is immensely sad to me, as someone brought up in the Christian faith, that Tim cites his Christianity to defend his views on these issues. The Christianity that I know and respect has at its very heart the overriding principle: “love your neighbour as yourself”.
quote:With all possible respect to that author, it seems to me that this is exactly what Farron did. He did put his respect for human equality before his religious views.
Originally posted by Louise:
Might be worth looking at the viewpoint of people who are actually (1) gay and (2) lib dems who have to work in his party
Brian Paddick resigned and David Laws has this to say
Tolerance not enough
quote:
But as a gay man, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views.
quote:This is nonsense.
Originally posted by Louise:
Ultimately to be a party leader, you need to model what your party believes in and show that you think it's good idea and that you're positive about it. Suppose you lead the Green Party and you won't say that fracking is wrong, however hard you're pressed, indeed you have shares in a company that fracks, and personally you never recycle and think it's a waste of time, though it's fine if other people want to do it...
quote:Tummy rot. In what sense was he somehow unenthusiastic about gay marriage.
Party leaders are not there to 'tolerate' core values of their parties, they're there to passionately advocate for them. Farron couldn't enthusiastically advocate for a core value in his party - so he wasn't a good fit for his party members and voters.
quote:Farron apparently has a 'pro' voting record.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?
quote:In the words of the summary of his voting record on TheyWorkForYou, "generally": he voted against back in 2007, but has been pretty consistent in voting in favour since, with one absence in 2013 (which was before he became party leader).
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?
quote:Being poor on human rights is already factored in if you're voting Tory.
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:Farron apparently has a 'pro' voting record.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Didn't he vote in favour of equal marriage?
It is less clear that can be said for the leader of another major party...
quote:Thanks. Here's a link. Please confine discussion of Tim Farron's views on homosexuality to that thread.
Originally posted by Louise:
Have put a thread in in dead horses on TIm Farron, if people want to copy posts over to that, discussion can be moved out of Purgatory.
quote:How do we feel about it then? Do we feel we are entitled to be respected as Christians, or merely tolerated when it doesn't inconvenience anyone else?
But as a Christian, I do not wish to be “tolerated”. I wish to be respected for who I am.
quote:Here's an idea: they can do their march as long as it's part of a Gay Pride march. They already have silly costumes...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We might see the Drumcree march back on.
That'll fill everyone's heart with joy.
quote:Hey Enoch,
Originally posted by Enoch:
I get the impression from your posts over the last few months, AFZ that unusually, your route to being a Labour Party supporter follows from your being persuaded by Keynsian economics, rather than the more usual route which is the other way round. But as someone outside the bubble of either of the two main parties, I can't see much difference between them in the way both,
a. Equate the national interest and their own, and
b. Assume that their party's survival as such is a matter of the public good.
quote:In the first instance I'd say that a Christian who couldn't attend a Hindu event with the same kind of condescending goodwill as an atheist at a Remembrance Day service was probably not best placed to serve as a councillor for a local authority with lots of Hindus.
Let's give two other examples, deliberately chosen not to have anything to do with any dead horses. Suppose as a Christian local councillor in a multi-cultural ward, I say that with all due politeness, as a Christian, I can't take part in a Diwali ceremony because much though I respect everyone's right to practice their own religion, my faith bars me from practising theirs.
Or suppose in a public enquiry into political shenanigans of some sort, I say that I can't tell lies under oath (or even not under oath) so as to cover up the embarrassment to the party.
Do you feel that as a Christian you are entitled to be respected for your faith, and where that might lead you to - even if other Christians might take a different line to you? Or do you feel that you should be grateful when you allowed to apologise for them, to hold them on sufferance?
quote:My MP, a committed Christian, is regularly seen at places of worship other than Christian churches. I cannot see a problem with attending as an observer and someone wanting to learn and to show respect. That's different from participating in religious services, I think. After all, many MP's are atheist / agnostic - can they not, with due conscience, attend?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know, personally I find the idea that councillors or elected officials should be available to go to any given religious service quite offensive.
It is one thing listening to constituents of all religious hues and where necessary fighting for their rights. Quite another participating in their religious services.
quote:I'd think less of my MP - or any MP - if they didn't attend at least the mainstream religious communities' celebrations. No one's asking them to say the Nicene Creed or declare that there's Only One God. They're there because they represent those people in parliament, and it's important, if not critical at this time, for everyone to feel part of their community.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't have any problem with someone volunteering or wanting to attend religious services to gain understanding of different communities. But I do have a problem if that is an expectation and if someone is judged negatively because they choose not to go to a religious service for any reason.
quote:There was a time not that long ago when the RCC forbade its members from attending Protestant services or even entering a Protestant church. Should people have not voted for RC politicians for following their Church's teachings back then? If not, why are things different today for members of religious traditions that frown upon participating in religious services of traditions outside their own?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'd think less of my MP - or any MP - if they didn't attend at least the mainstream religious communities' celebrations. No one's asking them to say the Nicene Creed or declare that there's Only One God. They're there because they represent those people in parliament, and it's important, if not critical at this time, for everyone to feel part of their community.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't have any problem with someone volunteering or wanting to attend religious services to gain understanding of different communities. But I do have a problem if that is an expectation and if someone is judged negatively because they choose not to go to a religious service for any reason.
quote:I would certainly expect MPs to meet with religious communities and would think it sensible to be seen at relevant events like a post-fast meal, a church fete etc. But for me it is ridiculous to expect a conservative Jew to attend a charismatic pentecostal service or a mainstream Muslim to attend a service at a local (Muslim or other) sect or an Evangelical to attend a service at a Sikh temple. If one wouldnt expect a Jew or a Muslim to do it, why is there pressure for an Evangelical to?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd think less of my MP - or any MP - if they didn't attend at least the mainstream religious communities' celebrations. No one's asking them to say the Nicene Creed or declare that there's Only One God. They're there because they represent those people in parliament, and it's important, if not critical at this time, for everyone to feel part of their community.
quote:I think the time is coming when remembrance services will either be secular or multi-religious. Even there, I have no problem with anyone, including an MP, who doesn't attend. Because there is no compulsion in religion.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
"If one wouldn't expect". How do you think it would received if Sadiq Khan didn't attend a rememberance day service, or a cathedral memorial service for the victims of a terrorist attack¹ ?
---
¹ Church Times
quote:Certainly vote for RC politicians who thought their church's rules were crap and were going to ignore them in this instance.
Originally posted by stonespring:
There was a time not that long ago when the RCC forbade its members from attending Protestant services or even entering a Protestant church. Should people have not voted for RC politicians for following their Church's teachings back then?
quote:Source, Gruaniad.
London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has arrived at a church service to remember those who have lost their lives and those who remain missing. The service is at St Clement Notting Dale church, which has been used as a relief centre.
quote:It's also the cornerstone of Sikhism.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The other question is how many religious communities actually want people who aren't of their religion to turn up at their religious observations. I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
quote:Seriously? This reflects neither an awareness of the history of Christianity or Protestantism nor a significant knowledge of other religions.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
quote:Re-reading my post I was not very clear.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Seriously? This reflects neither an awareness of the history of Christianity or Protestantism nor a significant knowledge of other religions.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
Very few ask for identification cards as one enters.
quote:Sorry to go too far with this tangent, but would your description above of the Church of England apply also to nonconformist and nondenominational churches in England? What about Protestant churches in other countries that did not emerge from the Church of England or any other Established Church (aside from the RCC) - like the Huguenots in France, Anabaptists in Continental Europe, Protestants in Latin America, Asia, and Africa that come from churches not founded by Western missionaries?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Re-reading my post I was not very clear.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Seriously? This reflects neither an awareness of the history of Christianity or Protestantism nor a significant knowledge of other religions.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the idea that we must welcome everyone through the door at all costs is a distinctly Christian, and perhaps even distinctly Protestant, idea.
Very few ask for identification cards as one enters.
In the Church of England there is a sort of expectation that the primary means by which people will become Christian is by attending Sunday services. The Sunday service must be made as accessible as possible to outsiders*, so that they will keep coming and Christianity will eventually rub off on them. Consequently, there is pressure to see services as being 'for' outsiders and to encourage outsiders to come in.
My understanding - and you are right that this is based on very limited experience - is that if I wanted to become Jewish or Muslim or even Catholic, then the primary entrance point to the faith would be via the rabbi or the imam or the priest, who would then educate me in the tenets of the faith. I would go to services, but it would be part of that education. IOW, the service is 'for' insiders, and I'd be there because I'm part of their internal course of study.
Obviously there are few religions that would actually bar the doors of their places of worship to outsiders, and few religions that would discourage outsiders from expressing interest, but I think there are also few religions where the primary means by which outsiders are expected to express interest is by turning up to their rituals.
* Sorry, can't think of a better word.
quote:Whether the extremists play a role is going to depend on the numbers. With >10-15 seats needed for a majority then a deal with a larger third party becomes an option (in the current HofC that would be LibDem and/or SNP/PC). With a smaller number of seats needed then we get the current situation of Ulster Unionists carrying the balance.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Personally I would like to see hung parliaments become the norm, so any party seeking to implement a manifesto would be required to consult with those of other views. That would hopefully prevent any extremist pushes to left or right.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by agingjb:
Isn't single member constituencies elected by STV exactly AV.
quote:We have a combined system - small single member constituencies and larger multimember constituencies. So, our list members represent those who vote for them just as much as the other MSPs, and as much as in the Irish system.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Irish multimember constituency system has a lot to be said for it It also gets one away from make-weight party list members as in Scotland, who don't actually represent any electors.
quote:I think a lot of this depends on the precise nature of the religious service. Consider the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This was, of course, a Christian service, in a large, well-known, Christian building.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
It is not that politicians are expected to be regular attenders at religious services, they are expected at civic events of rememberance and celebration basically.
