|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Utter bollocks.
Firstly, Corbyn is not "extreme". He's mainstream democratic socialist, edging to social democrat. His policies are straight from the standard left of centre playbook, common throughout Europe (not least in communist hell-holes like Norway) and consistently, when presented to people without telling them whose policies they are, have widespread support.
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.
The idea that Corbyn cannot engage the centre ground is nonsense. It's just taking time for people to see through the right-wing press cartoon villain version.
Hopefully they'll have to shut up about this whole "IRA sympathiser" bullshit now that May's in bed with current mates of the current, active, UDA.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Apparently, a survery on the ConservativeHome website has suggested that nearly 60% of Conservative party members think May should resign. They reckon it's the second biggest response they've ever had to a poll like this, and one of the fastest as well.
I realise there's all sorts of problems with online polls, but that still seems like a huge (unofficial) vote of no confidence in her from her own side.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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).
But the only way she can really be forced to go is if she loses a Parliamentary vote.
Can you or anyone else explain to me either a) what would motivate a Tory seeking to hold onto their current seat to defy the whip in the current circumstances? b) if the whip holds, what plausible combinations of opposition parties could outvote the Tories? She has a relative majority even without the DUP, doesn't she, albeit an ultra-slim one.
quote:
What seems more in question is whether that will be immediately. I think focussing on the Brexit negotiations might buy her some more time
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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).
But the only way she can really be forced to go is if she loses a Parliamentary vote.
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.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
There are proposals to reform exactly that issue in the 2018 Boundary Commission Review
quote:
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.
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.
I seem to recall at the time that the whole reorganisation was tipped to heavily favour the Conservative party. I'm not sure without reading further if the government is already committed to implementation by virtue of the original act, or whether it would require another vote(s).
There was something today in (I think) The Independent saying something like "Corbyn just 2,200 votes from victory" - that presumably being the number of votes required to win the ten smallest marginal seats he would have needed.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
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.
The general election did nothing to change this because campaigning mode is by its very nature incapable of producing revolutions. It can detect revolutions which have previously been undetected, as I believe it has in this case. It can't produce them, because they scatter support for pre-identified positions, rather than creating it, and campaigning is always about attracting people to formulated positions. This campaign has, of course, also shown what happens when these positions are unduly simplistic, but I still believe that any discussion of Brexit beyond the vaguest brush against it was not on the cards in the context of a general election.
[ 10. June 2017, 11:36: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
For Labour, get the strategy right and keep up the pressure... the war is winnable.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
[multiple x-posts]
quote:
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.
Sorry, yes, you're right, I'm not expressing myself clearly.
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.
[ 10. June 2017, 11:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[multiple x-posts]
quote:
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.
Sorry, yes, you're right, I'm not expressing myself clearly.
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.
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
This is a scary vision of what a DUP coalition might involve.
I've heard others say that it is impossible to imagine the DUP closing down Stormont as a price for membership of the coalition - but I really do believe they're relishing being in the spotlight and having a once-in-a-lifetime golden ticket to name whatever price they want.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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.
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 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.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I just hope that someone in the Tory party is awake enough to realise what a massive chasm they're walking into by doing this - and rescues the country before something really really bad happens.
I wouldn't bet money on it, but my guess is that the demands from the DUP will be too great for a coalition. Which, in and of itself, would be incredibly ironic. Not only is the future of this country being offered on a plate to the whims of the DUP, I'm hoping for someone in the Tory party to see sense before they commit to it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Expecting any sense from the Tory party might be a very long shot.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
mr cheesy said:
I'm hoping for someone in the Tory party to see sense
Did anyone else spot the oxymoron here?
(I share the hope, nevertheless).
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Well, yes, obviously, Alan did!
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Well, on that, I think, many of us would agree.
That still doesn't detract, IMHO, from Corbyn's achievement.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[multiple x-posts]
quote:
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.
Sorry, yes, you're right, I'm not expressing myself clearly.
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.
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.
I'm never sure if "coronations" like that do much good in any case, though I seem to remember Howard was the least disastrous of the post-Major, pre-Cameron leaders. I'm sure it does potential leaders good to have to make their case to the party and to see how it stands up against other people's: given this week's evidence, it doesn't seem to have done Corbyn any harm.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's far more important and unfair that supporters of some smaller parties would be much better represented in Parliament if they lived near other supporters. Why shouldn't UKIP voters living wherever they live get one of more MPs to represent them? Or more than one Green MP? Or LibDems get the MPs they deserve? The smaller the party, the more unfair this is and the bigger the party, the more they benefit and gain a disproportionate number of seats to the democratic deficit of everyone else. This almost certainly means that the votes they *do* currently get won't show the real level of support as people vote for someone else to avoid 'wasting' their vote' on their preferred candidate - it's an utter disgrace!
In this election people moved back towards a two-party system partly due to FPTP.
[ 10. June 2017, 16:13: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
For what it's worth, I think the election result reflected, more than any other issue, the elcectorate's dislike of the arrogant way in which Mrs May presented herself. 'Vote for me and don't bother your heads about what I'll do' may play well with Daily Mail readers, as does 'I'll remove legal safeguards if they stop me dealing with possible terrorists', but it doesn't appeal to the thinking voter. Even Mrs Thatcher campaigned to be Fuehrer.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Corbyn has won many things in this election, but the main one is respect and the right to be taken seriously. Lynton Crosby and The Tory press will have learned that constantly playing the man rather than the ball does not work; in the end the British sense of fair play will not stand for it. They will also learn that you really can't win an election by constantly mouthing the same meaningless soundbites, at least not against a grown-up opponent. The next election campaign will be very much about the issues, and that will expose the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Tories' austerity agenda, their gauche, jingoistic, self-defeating approach to the Brexit negotiations, and their Byzantine internal divisions. Bring it on!
I speak as someone who took a long time to warm to Corbyn, who didn't vote for him in either leadership election. As soon as it became clear just what a poor campaigner and tetchy interviewee Theresa May is, I suspected he might have a chance.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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).
So different, so very different from the Labour Party.
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.
At the moment, Mr Corbyn is riding high, but I suspect he believes that just as much as the Conservatives do, and if one takes the evidence of the last two years, rather than the last month, it's difficult not to suspect that he's just as secretive and reliant on his own clique as Mrs May is. Where he scores is his ability to whip up enthusiasm to attack what became as soon as the Conservatives cobbled together their manifesto, a sitting duck.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
And when you think of who they have to replace her, who to rally round ....
A bit of "more in sorrow than in anger" would probably rub salt in the open wound. Even more would be a real show of unity on the Labour benches at the upcoming PMQs.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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).
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.
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I want to challenge this and ask for some data.
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?
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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).
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.
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.
No.
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
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Here's a question which maybe isn't as obvious as it first appears (given what we've recently discussed on this topic here):
Is the DUP an Evangelical party? Apparently a third of members are from Paisley's Free Presbyterian church, and presumably a lot are from other Presbyterian groups.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
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).
So different, so very different from the Labour Party.
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.
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.
There are, however, some remarkable exceptions to that general rule. Cameron was explicit that he wanted to fix divisions in the Conservative Party, and used a national referendum to do that. And, now Mrs May decides that gaining the dubious support of 10 arseholes is a good idea - gaining a veneer of a mandate for her premiership at the expense of letting terrorist supporting religious extremists have a place in government.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Can someone explain, or point me to an explainer on, Scottish sectarianism? Thanks.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
On the minority, or coalition, govt we had a very productive minority govt not long ago. A lot of very good legislation got through. But it did not stop the doom and gloom from the media or the conservative opposition, trying to paint it as a failure and something that was chaotic. I think many believed them.
Do you see a possibility of it working there at all? Would Labor or the smaller parties help with legislation? Or, as people wrote above, are the DUP too conservative or inflexible?
[ 11. June 2017, 02:48: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
The current Tory DUP arrangement does not allow the Tories to do whatever they want.
So...yes, the Tories won at being government.
The Tories lost at governing how they wanted to.
AND, there is a good case to be made that the most likely next effective stable government for the UK is going to be Labour. Corbyn didn't win yet, but he certainly didn't lose.
In football terms, the Tories won 3-2 at home and Labour has those all important away goals.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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).
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.
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.
No.
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
[ 11. June 2017, 04:17: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Was Thatcher the last Tory leader ever not to be brought down trying to appease swivel eyed right wing anti-Europeans?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
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?
*Cough* IDS *Cough
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
A pity that 13 years of Labour rule didn't get this whole bloody EU thing bolted down in concrete while they had the chance.
Seems that faceless, behind the scenes bigwigs kept us out of the Euro, kept us in cahoots with America and got the home population all riled up over immigration.
It doesn't matter which political party holds power Britain's relationship with with Europe will forever be a thorn in it's side.
On a separate matter I'm beginning to think it is the Internet that is cocking up Election results. From Brexit to Trump to this latest seeming travesty, it is the same pattern. Fake news, echo chambers and instant gratification are rendering opinion Polls and political forecasts virtually useless.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Isn't there a law somewhere...anywhere.....about us all having twenty four hours respite from pronouncements by politicians?
They're getting more silly with every passing hour
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Yes, but isn't it entertaining to see them getting all tied up in knots?
Or it would be, were it not for the Ghastly Spectre of Bojo the Clown (our revered Foreign - or at least
Odd - Secretary, Boris Johnson) becoming Prime Fool... er ...Minister...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Meanwhile, the Rest Of The World laughs and cries at the sheer cockedupness of it all.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Seems that a lot of Remainers went Labour without reading the manifesto, and a lot of other groups went Labour for the good things they were offered, without reading the manifesto... Sample of the hundreds under Mr Peston's tweets today - "but but but I didn't vote Labour to leave the EU, and neither did my housemates"
Basically, whatever happens we're screwed. All ends up.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
