The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

HAL9000

Fretwired said:

What's wrong with Labour? Car crash interview on R4 this morning ... this woman is an MP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p050mxy9?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=thetodayprogramme&ns_source=facebook

And I see Labour MPs moaning about a possible Tory landslide and how it's bad for democracy. I didn't here anyone complaining when Blair won two three digit majorities - and good old Len McCluskey has had his rival for the election of leader of Unite suspended over 'irregularities' - straight out of the Stalinist book on how to keep power.

A once great party now a shambles ..

Yes indeed. I assume Ms Abbot is at least competent (after all, she manages to keep her seat), but every time I've heard her interviewed she seems very shambolic and short on facts.

randella

Fretwired said:

What's wrong with Labour? Car crash interview on R4 this morning ... this woman is an MP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p050mxy9?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=thetodayprogramme&ns_source=facebook

And I see Labour MPs moaning about a possible Tory landslide and how it's bad for democracy. I didn't here anyone complaining when Blair won two three digit majorities - and good old Len McCluskey has had his rival for the election of leader of Unite suspended over 'irregularities' - straight out of the Stalinist book on how to keep power.

A once great party now a shambles ..

I'm increasingly of the view that there's not even any point in analysing what they say or do at the moment.  They're flat out of ideas.  Any sign of nascent talent in the party was crushed by Brown's ascendancy to the throne - he wasn't going to let anyone else have a shot at it.  Poisoned chalice that turned out to be.  You have some idea how much they're scraping along when a portion of the PLP shrug their shoulders and agree to give Corbyn a shot.

It's all cyclical, the Tories weren't exactly blazing a trail under "I necked 14 pints of lager on the regular" Hague.

I've gone from a nagging sense of despair to apathy with them.  Project Corbyn will sink of its own accord, they'll rebuild, and we'll have a proper opposition and a shot at centre-left government back at some point.  There's a lot of slightly hysterical talk about how they're finished, or they'll split SDP-style, I'll have a tenner says that neither happens.

Wherever you are on the political spectrum you have to concede a decent, sensible opposition is a good thing.

Cirrus

That interview on R4's PM yesterday was so bad, I was trying to catch the eyes of other drivers on the M40 to see if anyone else was as incredulous as me.

Heartfeltdawn

@Fretwired You might want to keep an eye on Youtube as someone will surely upload Mike Kane's interview on Sky News this morning... 

That said, the Sky News bias is very clear and evident now. Pre-2015, it was kept fairly much on the right side of centre. The last two years, it's been moving more and more toward a Sunday Times line of thought. 

Heartfeltdawn

randella said

I'm increasingly of the view that there's not even any point in analysing what they say or do at the moment.  They're flat out of ideas.  Any sign of nascent talent in the party was crushed by Brown's ascendancy to the throne - he wasn't going to let anyone else have a shot at it.  Poisoned chalice that turned out to be.  You have some idea how much they're scraping along when a portion of the PLP shrug their shoulders and agree to give Corbyn a shot.

It's all cyclical, the Tories weren't exactly blazing a trail under "I necked 14 pints of lager on the regular" Hague.

I've gone from a nagging sense of despair to apathy with them.  Project Corbyn will sink of its own accord, they'll rebuild, and we'll have a proper opposition and a shot at centre-left government back at some point.  There's a lot of slightly hysterical talk about how they're finished, or they'll split SDP-style, I'll have a tenner says that neither happens.

Wherever you are on the political spectrum you have to concede a decent, sensible opposition is a good thing.

And the sense might well come from those areas prepared to defy the leadership. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/surrey-labour-progressive-alliance

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

randella said

I'm increasingly of the view that there's not even any point in analysing what they say or do at the moment.  They're flat out of ideas.  Any sign of nascent talent in the party was crushed by Brown's ascendancy to the throne - he wasn't going to let anyone else have a shot at it.  Poisoned chalice that turned out to be.  You have some idea how much they're scraping along when a portion of the PLP shrug their shoulders and agree to give Corbyn a shot.

It's all cyclical, the Tories weren't exactly blazing a trail under "I necked 14 pints of lager on the regular" Hague.

I've gone from a nagging sense of despair to apathy with them.  Project Corbyn will sink of its own accord, they'll rebuild, and we'll have a proper opposition and a shot at centre-left government back at some point.  There's a lot of slightly hysterical talk about how they're finished, or they'll split SDP-style, I'll have a tenner says that neither happens.

Wherever you are on the political spectrum you have to concede a decent, sensible opposition is a good thing.

And the sense might well come from those areas prepared to defy the leadership. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/surrey-labour-progressive-alliance

This sort of alliance will backfire. Many Labour voters don't like the Lib Dems or Greens, so won't bother voting - watch the Newsnight report from Wenesday. The Tories will get their vote out and many UKIP supporters will probably switch to the Tories. It might win a few seats in the London area on Brexit (although Labour's new tax policy might stymie that), but it will do more harm than good to the Labour Party.

randella

Fretwired said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

And the sense might well come from those areas prepared to defy the leadership. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/20/surrey-labour-progressive-alliance

This sort of alliance will backfire. Many Labour voters don't like the Lib Dems or Greens, so won't bother voting - watch the Newsnight report from Wenesday. The Tories will get their vote out and many UKIP supporters will probably switch to the Tories. It might win a few seats in the London area on Brexit (although Labour's new tax policy might stymie that), but it will do more harm than good to the Labour Party.

On a very simplistic level you could say that Labour is an alliance of traditional working class, metropolitan (insult 'elite' insult here ) and all points in-between.  I guess a Labour voter's dislike of the Greens or Libs will depend on their place on that reductive and simplistic spectrum of mine.

Maybe the alliances then will work at a local level where the Labour vote is more towards the Libs anyway.  Reading that article I thought of a few things in no particular order:

• I'm not a stupid man, but I read through it and wasn't sure I'd grasped the finer points - I need to read it again later.  It's interesting but maybe in danger of not firing up a voter who can't be arsed digesting it all.  It's a bit like Game of Thrones.
• Will people see it as chicanery?  We had that argument a while back, could even have been in this thread.  It worked in Richmond, will it work elsewhere?
• The most interesting thing about it for me is that it highlights the lack of original thought from the Parliamentary party and shows some actual grassroots work being done on the ground by the progressives now - almost playing Corbyn at his own game

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

This sort of alliance will backfire. Many Labour voters don't like the Lib Dems or Greens, so won't bother voting - watch the Newsnight report from Wenesday. The Tories will get their vote out and many UKIP supporters will probably switch to the Tories. It might win a few seats in the London area on Brexit (although Labour's new tax policy might stymie that), but it will do more harm than good to the Labour Party.

It depends on the area. Labour supporters in Surrey are going to be very different to Labour supporters in Hartlepool or Middlesborough for instance, not least on something like Brexit. 

Really the point isn't whether the alliance could win as most likely they won't. It's that they would be prepared to defy the national party who talk of inclusion and getting on but then won't entertain the notion of any sort of progressive alliance. 

VimFuego

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

This sort of alliance will backfire. Many Labour voters don't like the Lib Dems or Greens, so won't bother voting - watch the Newsnight report from Wenesday. The Tories will get their vote out and many UKIP supporters will probably switch to the Tories. It might win a few seats in the London area on Brexit (although Labour's new tax policy might stymie that), but it will do more harm than good to the Labour Party.

It depends on the area. Labour supporters in Surrey are going to be very different to Labour supporters in Hartlepool or Middlesborough for instance, not least on something like Brexit. 

Really the point isn't whether the alliance could win as most likely they won't. It's that they would be prepared to defy the national party who talk of inclusion and getting on but then won't entertain the notion of any sort of progressive alliance. 

I know quite a lot of mad hippy types down here, who are all generally green or labour voters, they are saying they, and others they know will vote lib dem this time in an effort to remove the sitting tory MP (who is himself, not a totally bad MP, does a lot of work in the constituency).

Heartfeltdawn

randella said:

On a very simplistic level you could say that Labour is an alliance of traditional working class, metropolitan (insult 'elite' insult here ) and all points in-between.  I guess a Labour voter's dislike of the Greens or Libs will depend on their place on that reductive and simplistic spectrum of mine.

Maybe the alliances then will work at a local level where the Labour vote is more towards the Libs anyway.  Reading that article I thought of a few things in no particular order:

• I'm not a stupid man, but I read through it and wasn't sure I'd grasped the finer points - I need to read it again later.  It's interesting but maybe in danger of not firing up a voter who can't be arsed digesting it all.  It's a bit like Game of Thrones.
• Will people see it as chicanery?  We had that argument a while back, could even have been in this thread.  It worked in Richmond, will it work elsewhere?
• The most interesting thing about it for me is that it highlights the lack of original thought from the Parliamentary party and shows some actual grassroots work being done on the ground by the progressives now - almost playing Corbyn at his own game

As said above, a Labour voter in Surrey is going to be closer to the Libs and the Greens than a Labour voter in the old industrial Northern heartlands. The coalition has nothing to lose. Hunt won South West Surrey by nearly 30,000 votes in 2015. In 3 elections, he's never taken less than 50% of the vote. 

Folk might see it as chicanery. To me, it is a case of Westminster politics adopting a more local feel. County councils and authorities generally have to run in a far more collaborative way than Parliament. 

I'd say that the progressives are doing the right thing in this case. They see fuck all positive in Corbyn so they're trying something different. 

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

This sort of alliance will backfire. Many Labour voters don't like the Lib Dems or Greens, so won't bother voting - watch the Newsnight report from Wenesday. The Tories will get their vote out and many UKIP supporters will probably switch to the Tories. It might win a few seats in the London area on Brexit (although Labour's new tax policy might stymie that), but it will do more harm than good to the Labour Party.

It depends on the area. Labour supporters in Surrey are going to be very different to Labour supporters in Hartlepool or Middlesborough for instance, not least on something like Brexit. 

Really the point isn't whether the alliance could win as most likely they won't. It's that they would be prepared to defy the national party who talk of inclusion and getting on but then won't entertain the notion of any sort of progressive alliance. 

I know quite a lot of mad hippy types down here, who are all generally green or labour voters, they are saying they, and others they know will vote lib dem this time in an effort to remove the sitting tory MP (who is himself, not a totally bad MP, does a lot of work in the constituency).

I agree that it depends on the area, but its negative politics - vote to stop a Tory. It supports the mantra that Tories are evil scum.
And it risks apathy among voters  and its dangerous for Labour as it could see a resurgent Lib Dem Party. And its hardly a progressive alliance of the left - more a sign of desperation. They would be better off coming up with some policies worth voting for ..

VimFuego

it is negetive, I agree, however we have a significant democratic shortfall in this country due to our flawed electoral system. If the tories are willing to game the system to gain an advantage then I don't see anything wrong in applying the same to them. If all votes counted, there's no way in hell they'd have called an early election.

randella

Heartfeltdawn said:

Folk might see it as chicanery. To me, it is a case of Westminster politics adopting a more local feel. County councils and authorities generally have to run in a far more collaborative way than Parliament. 

I'd say that the progressives are doing the right thing in this case. They see fuck all positive in Corbyn so they're trying something different. 

I agree - I like the local aspect very much.  I'd do away with FPTP and encourage a lot more of it.  I think it's a way of actually engaging people instead of a five-yearly (usually!) slog between the two old dinosaurs at Westminster level, which doesn't hold that much attraction when you feel geographically isolated from it.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

I agree that it depends on the area, but its negative politics - vote to stop a Tory. It supports the mantra that Tories are evil scum.
And it risks apathy among voters  and its dangerous for Labour as it could see a resurgent Lib Dem Party. And its hardly a progressive alliance of the left - more a sign of desperation. They would be better off coming up with some policies worth voting for ..

Negative politics doesn't breed apathy at all in my view. Look at our lowest turnout elections in recent years: local, MEP, and the PCC elections. Most of these are characterised by a lack of fighting and bitching between the candidates. Turnout is generally low, apathy is generally high. 

You then jump to the other end of the scale with the referendum, a process that featured virtually nothing other than negative politics from both sides. Turnout was through the roof. UK General Election turnout has been on the rise since 2001 despite some pretty bitchy campaigning. 

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Donald Trump utilised a lot of negative politics: Republican turnout figures for the primaries were huge. Now the Presidential election turnout was down on recent years but that's been put down to a lack of support for Mrs Clinton, not because people were turned off by negative politics. The Democrat failure was down to Democrat apathy toward the appointed candidate. 

A sign of desperation - yes it is, and it's there because so many Labour supporters are feeling pretty fucking desperate with Beardy Vestman in charge. They see an emboldened Conservative Party, they see the usual media sources champing at the bit to smash the lefties, they see Brexit looming like an iceberg, and they look over to their appointed leader and he's bent sucking over Len McClusky's cock whilst a Unison flunky slaps his arse with a cheque book.  

No fucking wonder they're desperate! 

quarky

Jeremy Corbyn has demanded a snap general election in a move that critics said was a “foolish” attempt to “hang on” as leader that could see 100 Labour MPs lose their seats.

Speaking after Andrea Leadsom’s resignation, Jon Trickett, Labour’s election co-coordinator and a key Corbyn ally, said the next prime minister must be “democratically elected” and put the party on an "election footing". 

However Labour moderates said the call was “the equivalent of running full pelt off the edge of a cliff” and could see the number of Labour MPs elected cut in half. 

Recent polls have put Labour eight points behind the Conservatives – a greater lead than the Tories won in the 2015 general election. 

The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party also called for a snap election while SNP sources said they would not stand in the way of a contest. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/angela-eagle-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-theresa-may/

Oh wait, that was months ago. LOL.

Fretwired

VimFuego said:

it is negetive, I agree, however we have a significant democratic shortfall in this country due to our flawed electoral system. If the tories are willing to game the system to gain an advantage then I don't see anything wrong in applying the same to them. If all votes counted, there's no way in hell they'd have called an early election.

The system doesn't favour the Tories. Had Labour got a decent left of centre leader and some policies I think they'd be well ahead in England. Cameron couldn't beat brown and ended up with a slim majority against Miliband who was wiped out in Scotland. Cameron hardly caused an earthquake in British politics.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

The system doesn't favour the Tories. Had Labour got a decent left of centre leader and some policies I think they'd be well ahead in England. Cameron couldn't beat brown and ended up with a slim majority against Miliband who was wiped out in Scotland. Cameron hardly caused an earthquake in British politics.

Yet without him making the Conservatives electable again, we wouldn't have had a referendum aka the largest political earthquake for generations in this country. He did what Thatcher, Major, Blair, and Brown didn't: he gave a chance for the electorate to speak on Europe. 

Sometimes it isn't about the person who drops the bomb: it's about the person who facilitates the pathway for the bomb to be dropped. 

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

I agree that it depends on the area, but its negative politics - vote to stop a Tory. It supports the mantra that Tories are evil scum.
And it risks apathy among voters  and its dangerous for Labour as it could see a resurgent Lib Dem Party. And its hardly a progressive alliance of the left - more a sign of desperation. They would be better off coming up with some policies worth voting for ..

Negative politics doesn't breed apathy at all in my view. Look at our lowest turnout elections in recent years: local, MEP, and the PCC elections. Most of these are characterised by a lack of fighting and bitching between the candidates. Turnout is generally low, apathy is generally high. 

You then jump to the other end of the scale with the referendum, a process that featured virtually nothing other than negative politics from both sides. Turnout was through the roof. UK General Election turnout has been on the rise since 2001 despite some pretty bitchy campaigning. 

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Donald Trump utilised a lot of negative politics: Republican turnout figures for the primaries were huge. Now the Presidential election turnout was down on recent years but that's been put down to a lack of support for Mrs Clinton, not because people were turned off by negative politics. The Democrat failure was down to Democrat apathy toward the appointed candidate. 

A sign of desperation - yes it is, and it's there because so many Labour supporters are feeling pretty fucking desperate with Beardy Vestman in charge. They see an emboldened Conservative Party, they see the usual media sources champing at the bit to smash the lefties, they see Brexit looming like an iceberg, and they look over to their appointed leader and he's bent sucking over Len McClusky's cock whilst a Unison flunky slaps his arse with a cheque book.  

No fucking wonder they're desperate! 

The referendum was a straight question - remain or leave the EU and everyone's vote counted.

The problem with tactical voting is apathy. When it's been tried in the past it hasn't worked that well - if you're a staunch Labour supporter you'll probably think sod it I can't be arsed to vote. What it it gives the Tories is a clarion call to get their vote out. The other thing it does is potentially damage the Lib Dems. I bet there are seats in areas that voted remain where the Lib Dems could win votes from Tories who voted remain. If the Lib Dems are seen to be in bed with Corbyn's Labour they'll be unlikely to vote Lib Dem.

Tim Farron is missing a trick IMHO - he can win seats on a remain ticket.

randella

Fretwired said:

Tim Farron is missing a trick IMHO - he can win seats on a remain ticket.

IMO Farron's a bit weak - plus this god business following him around won't be endearing him to his natural voter base one little bit.

Fretwired

Heartfeltdawn said:

Fretwired said:

The system doesn't favour the Tories. Had Labour got a decent left of centre leader and some policies I think they'd be well ahead in England. Cameron couldn't beat brown and ended up with a slim majority against Miliband who was wiped out in Scotland. Cameron hardly caused an earthquake in British politics.

Yet without him making the Conservatives electable again, we wouldn't have had a referendum aka the largest political earthquake for generations in this country. He did what Thatcher, Major, Blair, and Brown didn't: he gave a chance for the electorate to speak on Europe. 

Sometimes it isn't about the person who drops the bomb: it's about the person who facilitates the pathway for the bomb to be dropped. 

My earthquake comment was about the two general elections stood in as leader. Cameron didn't make the Tories electable - people were tired of Labour and many turned to the Lib Dems and SNP, not the Tories. In 2010 he was forced into a coalition (hardly a ringing endorsement when he couldn't beat Brown) and in 2015 he just about beat a guy who couldn't make a bacon sandwich and profited from a collapse in Lib Dem support over the coalition.

With regards to the referendum don't forget Labour did a massive U-turn and backed it so it suddenly built up momentum ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32863749