|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
Who takes notice of what they read in any Newspaper ? They all have their own Agendas. I often have letters published in several of them. But everyone has to be written differently to be selected, even if they contain the same basic message.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
My take on Stonespring's questions FWIW. Big overall observation is, again, Stonespring, that it's not all about Brexit. Brexit is an elephant in the room - the others are Scottish Nationalism and Jeremy Corbyn.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why has Tory support gone up and Labour support gone down since the Brexit referendum?
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.
quote:
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?
Yes to both of those movements, also switchers to the Tories from all parties (inc Labour) because of Jeremy.
quote:
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?
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.
In Scotland polling seems (with the usual caveat on polling) to indicate that people who don't want Scottish independence (narrow majority) see this as more important than Brexit, and are coalescing around the Tories as guarantor of Unionism. If Scottish Unionist remainers give the Tories counter-intuitively say 8 seats north of the border then that starts to cancel out the LibDems taking pro-Remain southern seats (assuming that the LibDems surge to no more than 25 seats overall from their current 9.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do so many of them think giving May a stronger majority will result in a soft Brexit?
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."
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Do they trust their local Tory MP to fight for a soft Brexit?
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.
quote:
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.
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.
I say all of this of course, in the sure and certain knowledge that we'll be waking up to a Lib Dem government on 9th June!
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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' ?
There is a certain part of the press that has run with the argument that a larger majority will make for a softer Brexit, but I don't necessarily see why this will be so - it certainly won't have a bearing on the EUs calculus, and a larger majority could also simply mean that the more hardline (who are as likely come to power as a result of Leavers switching to Tory) are even more likely to make mischief.
Given that that's an empty argument, and that Labour are unlikely to win a majority, tactical voting to give the Tories as small a majority as possible seems to me to be a reasonable option - though it remains to be seen how many other people feel the same way.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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' ?
Honestly? Probably both.
They're going to lose some seats; they're going to win some seats that they're targeting; they're going, a la the SNP in 2015, to "accidentally" win some seats far beyond their expectations and in which they've only stood paper candidates - most probably because of eg a catastrophic collapse/migration to the Tories of the Labour and UKIP vote in a few seats.
In those circumstances the choice is whether to continue to regard them as accidental wins, or try and hold them on the basis of appealing to people (and communities) that have never hitherto been seen as the Tories' bailiwick.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory
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.
Jeremy Corbyn may be the darling of his party activists, but to the rest of us he's an unelectable buffoon. I saw him on Andrew Marr on Sunday. He didn't seem to know that his party is putting renewal of Trident in its manifesto. He says the policy is still to be decided. He said nothing intelligible on Brexit to distinguish him from Theresa May's position. Nobody with half a brain could trust him on national security. Probably he still has more trust on the NHS than the government, but it isn't going to be enough of a fig leaf to cover his nakedness. I only hope that Labour learns its lesson from this.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory
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.
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...)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is utter madness to vote Tory
This is all you needed to say. Unfortunately, it is not the way people think.
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
I simply cannot understand why so many are considering voting Tory
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.
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.
That would be a phenominal result by UK standards. It's probably better to say that a Tory landslide in 1992 was prevented by the strong Labour turnout.
As an aside, I did one of those online "which party should you vote for" surveys and was surprised to note that the Lib Dems were the party whose policies people mostly agreed with. All of which goes to show how important trust is. The Tories, despite having disagreeable policies, are more trusted than Labour and far more than the Lib Dems to know what's best. It's a short step from this to say that the Tories are trusted to know what's best on Europe.
The big breakthrough for the SNP is that Scots changed from simply agreeing with them to trusting them.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Fantastic news! We can all relax now because two great bodies have decided to endorse Jeremy Corbyn and are exhorting their members to vote for JC and Labour. Yes, the Communist Party of Britain and the Trades Unionist & Socialist Party are both putting their weight behind Jezza so victory is assured for Labour and the bearded one from Islington.
In other news, JC may well be dragged into the nastiness that is ongoing at the disciplinary panel of the Law Society, currently holding a hearing against Leigh Day for suppressing evidence prejudicial to the then ongoing Al Suweady enquiry.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Personally I think that very few people are actually committed to any given party
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Just to add, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Shami Chakrabati to whitewash an enquiry into anti-Semitism within the party and rewarded her with a peerage for giving him the answer he wanted. In the meanwhile Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the party for a year but allowed to remain a member. I give my absolute assurance that I will never vote Labour while Ken Livingstone is a member of the party.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
1. Aside from Brexit, Scottish Independence, and people's opinion of Jeremy Corbyn - what other issues are likely to motivate voters in this election? 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? How do people feel about the state of the NHS, education, welfare, taxes, defense and foreign policy, and anything else you can think of? 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?
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?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is utter madness to vote Tory
This is all you needed to say. Unfortunately, it is not the way people think.
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.
I just see Tory policies as cruel. Now we have talk of children turning up to school hungry, and teachers giving them food. WTF?
I prefer Corbyn's dithering to this.
--------------------
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 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?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
quote:
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?
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.
My prediction - Tory remainers will, by and large, vote Tory anyway come June 8th (as things stand, absent seismic changes).
If you're working class Labour leave then you probably think Corbyn's a waste of space and want to leave the EU so you're going to vote Tory - you may as well get at least *something* that you want...
My prediction, Labour Leavers are going to stay at home or vote Tory.
quote:
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?
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,
implode, and end up merging with the LibDems.
Incidentally, red/wet Tory MPs spent most of yesterday jumping from the cross-party Remain groups that they were members of because, when it came down to it, party was more important. Which kind of backs up what I've been saying.
More likely IMO is some post election jumping from the Labour right, but they're best viewed as CofE evangelicals - for a long time the Labour party's been the best boat to fish from for them and most will probably stay and keep fighting the internal enemy.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
[ 26. April 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...
[ 26. April 2017, 10:56: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.
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.
TM seems to have become decidedly more liberal on the issue in recent years
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=826
So based on on recent voting record she would probably say she was pro-Gay Rights.
She was absent for a lot of votes though. And unlike Tim Farron, she isnt thought of in the Media as an Evangelical, with all the baggage that comes with.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.
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.
A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...
Ward has just been sacked. So that's a point in their favour, after all.
--------------------
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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.
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.
A friend of mine who joined them last week has just resigned...
Ward has just been sacked. So that's a point in their favour, after all.
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.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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?
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.
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.
Not that Corbyn is showing any signs of trying to shift the narrative.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
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
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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
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.
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
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.
But I do wonder if after big figures such as Thatcher and Blair, there is a tendency in parties towards depression and a kind of manic inactivity. It reminds me of divorce! Recovery time varies, but maybe 10 years? In Labour's case, maybe 15.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
It was the banks that ruined the economy by lending immense amounts of money to people who couldn't pay it back. When the crash came, I don't think nationalising the failed banks so that the cash machines would still work the following morning counts as "doing nothing". There is a case to be made that he should have done nothing and let it all burn, but we were 12 hours from nobody being paid or being able to buy food. And he refused to take the fetid corpse of Lehman Bros off the Americans' hands.
[ 26. April 2017, 16:25: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Well, that's utterly and completely wrong.
The Banking Crisis hit most economies in the western world. It would have been worse if Brown hadn't led the way in putting together a rescue package for the banks. Frankly, when Brown said in a slip of the tongue that he'd saved the world instead of saying that he'd saved the banks, he was nearly right. Brown was decisive when Bush's US was dithering.
Darling and Brown had just begun to coax the country back into recovery. Then the Tories won and Osborne trampled the green shoots and didn't water them. And the result has been seven largely wasted years.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
A comment on whether London's Remain vote is likely to have an effect on voting there. I mentioned on the previous page that it would be interesting to see how well Tory support held up in London, given its overwhelming Remain vote.
The latest poll of GB by Panelbase has the following totals (2015 result in brackets)
C: 49% (37)
Lab: 27% (30)
LD: 10% (8)
UKIP: 5% (13)
SNP: 4% (5)
Green: 3% (4)
All of which suggests UKIP support, and some Labour support, transferring to the Conservatives.
In London the picture is more complicated (I note the sample size is small):
C: 43% (35)
Lab: 28% (44)
LD: 20% (8)
Green: 7% (5)
UKIP: 1% (8)
So we see not so much a reduction as a collapse in the UKIP vote (although from a low level - there being proportionally fewer grumpy white people in London to vote for them).
However, we also see a doubling of the Lib Dem vote, basically back to 2010 levels. Presumably this comes from Labour, whose support shows an appalling drop.
Lib Dem support in London tends to be concentrated in London's south west. This is relatively wealthy, higly eductated and particularly pro-Remain area, and so one might expect the Lib Dems to regain those seats from the Tories now holding them (Richmond Park was regained recently). However, the Tory surge might enable them to hold the Lib Dems off, depending on how successfully the latter can squeeze the Labour and Green vote.
Ironically, the sole LD London MP actually represents one of the few Leave area (Sutton: 53 to 46).
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Terrible for Labour that even London is deserting them. The Lib Dem revival is unlikely to translate into many seats for them there, more likely it will just split the non-Tory vote and gift Mrs May even more MPs for her overcrowded benches.
Time was when even in a bad election, Labour could bank on Scotland, Wales, Inner London and the Northern cities. Now it's the Northern cities...maybe?
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
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.
Its not like Europe really needs to care about the English people anymore.
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Coming from a country (the US) with a presidential system and with constitutionally fixed legislative terms and even a constitutionally fixed election day, I often envy the ability of most parliamentary systems in the world to have an election whenever government ceases to function or whenever a majority in the legislature desire it (although in the UK the Fixed Term Parliaments Act makes it a 2/3 majority).
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, that the Prime Minister can (just like in any other parliamentary system that allows for snap elections) choose at any time when an election will be, taking advantage of circumstances that have generated a swell in her/his party's poll numbers. Of course, there have been times when calling a snap election has backfired on a PM, but the ability to call one still gives a huge advantage to the incumbent party.
I think that in some countries snap elections can only be called by an actual vote of no confidence - meaning in practice that barring exceptional circumstances they can only be triggered by the opposition assuming that the opposition can round up enough support to pass a motion of no confidence. Is this fairer? I think there have been cases where PMs have gotten around this by asking for a vote of no confidence themselves - are there countries where even this is not allowed (where only MPs outside the PMs party/coalition can initiate a motion of no confidence)?
Another provision that might make snap elections seem less unfair would be one that would require a longer time for opposition parties to prepare for the election - I would think six months. To allow for quick elections in an emergency, this requirement could be overcome by an actual vote of no confidence (if the country allows for snap elections without a vote of no confidence), or by a supermajority of some kind (Picture this: The PM wants a snap election but the system is framed such that a 2/3 or even 3/4 majority is needed to have a snap election in less than 6 months). Would this be fairer? Would it be practical?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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,
That's a mighty strong extrapolation from one data point.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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,
That's a mighty strong extrapolation from one data point.
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now, we could take the view that the Today Programme is an arm of government propaganda and you'd expect the BBC to help the govt out at this time by saying that. Obviously the fact that they moved quickly on to a crucifying interview with the Foreign Secretary was merely cover...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
While we're drawing inferences, the lack of comment on this subject from Labour and the Liberal Democrats calls to mind the famous speech of the Very Reverend John da Costa in Salisbury/Harare Cathedral in 1978
"one listens for loud condemnation....one listens and the silence is deafening"
wonder why?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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
Gently Alan, I think you might be missing a few "allegedlies"
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.
However, the Tories have already paid a record fine over 2015 election expenses. And, it is certainly possible that there is more to come.
quote:
"one listens for loud condemnation....one listens and the silence is deafening"
wonder why?
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
and at least one EU official has come out and explicitly said this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/22/dont-believe-theresa-may-election-wont-change-brexit
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
While we're drawing inferences, the lack of comment on this subject from Labour and the Liberal Democrats
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).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
One hopes that May's thinking is more that if she has a large enough majority she can get a softer deal through parliament without having to worry about hardline backbenchers. This might however backfire if the election brings in additional hardline backbenchers. Also what signs there are from May are that she's happy with a hard deal.
The real reason is almost certainly that she thinks she can wipe out Labour.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Bottom line though *regardless of the specifics of the allegations* is that the other parties don't want to make too much of things being found under Tory rocks in case it leads to the underside of their own rocks being examined more carefully. Much like the MPs expenses saga actually.
On the face of it it looks like it should be a gift to the opposition (of whatever colour), in reality they can't afford to be seen too near it.
Lovely business, politics.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The real reason is almost certainly that she thinks she can wipe out Labour.
And, she may be right.
Of course, with a fixed term parliament Mrs May is unable to just say "we're going to have an early election", she needs to produce a reason other than because the timing is right to (probably) boost her majority. She can't really go to the country on a "you elected us in 2015 to fix the economy, so we want a chance for you to support us in continuing to do the same thing". She could have done so almost immediately after being elected as leader of the Tories, and she would have done well with a principalled "you voted for the Tories under Cameron, you now get the chance to vote for the Tories under me" - but she refused to do so, and can't now decide to do that. The card she has in her hand that she can play is the fact that the form of Brexit was undefined, and she can claim that an election now presents a chance to vote on her plan.
Of course, it's still just a card in the political game rather than the real reason - which is still that she sees a really good chance of winning the current round in the game while Labour are in total meltdown, and doesn't want to risk waiting until 2020 where the outcome is less clear. She then has 5 years to see what cards come her way, and build a winning hand for the next round in the game.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
