UK General Election

[McHrozni]

Seems to me that you're ignoring the fact that the Conservatives are going upwards at the same or higher rate as Labour. Labour is some way short of being even at the same position it was at the last election, and the Conservative vote is looking like being about 11% higher than last time out. Ho hum..........you'll see what you want to see, I guess, until the result is a 150+ majority for the Conservatives.

I'm just trying to make sense of the data. There is no need for Tories to go against their entire paradigm and show what a fraud Brexit is and will be at the same time if they're looking at what would be described as a supermajority in a different constitutional setup.

It's Labour who should be doing desperate pleas like this one in a hope of holding on to on more seats, enough perhaps to remain a viable opposition party. There is just no reason for Tories to do so, unless they're concerned by pro-Labour dynamics in the electorate and are trying to prevent them at root level.

Either that or they're far less competent than Brexit showed, and that's saying something.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

That's a 5% chance of Labour winning. Remember that the Conservative vote has been underrepresented in the opinion polls for decades now. A little jump in Labour's rating when they've had all the publicity this week with their manifesto.........and the Conservatives haven't even launched theirs yet. I really don't think you understand what is happening in the country electorally right now.

The current figures are:

Conservative: 410 seats
Labour: 166 seats

....a mere 5 days ago it was

Conservative: 420 seats
Labour: 157 seats

Thats nearly 4 seats a day reduction in the Lab/Con gap.

At that rate, Labour could win the election if only it was being held in a couple of months time

IMO, Labour are circling the drain. There are 100-150 constituencies which will return a Labour MP more or less regardless (though as the Liberals demonstrated 100 years ago, that number can drop in successive elections) but beyond that, there's little good news for Labour in the future unless they decide to move back to the centre.

 

[McHrozni]

IMO, Labour are circling the drain. There are 100-150 constituencies which will return a Labour MP more or less regardless (though as the Liberals demonstrated 100 years ago, that number can drop in successive elections) but beyond that, there's little good news for Labour in the future unless they decide to move back to the centre.

I agree, there is no reason for optimism if you're a Labour supporter.

The question then becomes why is Theresa May involved in vote buying by means which work to scuttle what will be the main political project of her political career?

Incompetence? A very symbolic seat that might turn Conservative? Demonic possession? I'm all ears

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

......It's Labour who should be doing desperate pleas like this one in a hope of holding on to on more seats, enough perhaps to remain a viable opposition party. There is just no reason for Tories to do so.........

You see it as electioneering. Desperate electioneering at that. I see it as May finally fulfilling the promises made when she entered Downing Street to the "hard working families" and the "just getting by-s". She also talked about cutting the bosses and their excesses down to size......I expect some action on that too.

 

[The Don]

I really don't know why you are surprised by this. TM said this stuff when she stood at the podium in front of 10 Downing St last year. Did you think she was joking?

I'm surprised because it runs counter to 40+ years of Conservative policy.

The Conservatives have consistently fought to make the labour market "more flexible" in order to make UK industry more competitive. At a point in time when the need to do this is even more important, it seems odd to me that the Conservative Party will seek to hamstring UK Ltd.

 

[MikeG]

Oh, and the Brexit thing.......

Don't forget that May (half heartedly) and the Government campaigned for Remain. The 'promises' made by the Leavers were therefore not made by Government, nor did they in any way commit the government. The Leavers can be considered a lobby group. The government considered their input, and came out with its own negotiating strategy. I'm not sure what is fraudulent about that.

 

[McHrozni]

Oh, and the Brexit thing.......

Don't forget that May (half heartedly) and the Government campaigned for Remain. The 'promises' made by the Leavers were therefore not made by Government, nor did they in any way commit the government. The Leavers can be considered a lobby group. The government considered their input, and came out with its own negotiating strategy. I'm not sure what is fraudulent about that.

In order for Brexit to be made into a success it must bring something to the table. Trampling on labor rights can make economy more competitive and it's been made possible by leaving the EU. If UK doubles down on workers' rights it lost one of the key possible motives for leaving the EU.

What are the other possible benefits of Brexit? I see preciously few.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

What are the other possible benefits of Brexit? I see preciously few.

Without wishing to speak for MikeG, there are some pro-Brexit people who see Brexit as an opportunity to level the playing field in the UK which has been stacked in favour of developed countries - most notably those in the EU and against developing countries.

A UK which is completely free of EU influence could set up more equitable trading relationships with, for example, African countries as opposed to the horribly one-sided relationships that the EU has. This may or may not work out to be to the benefit of the UK, but for the world in general, and the developing countries who benefit from the new deals, then it's a fairer position.

The same could be said for immigration. Unfettered immigration from the EU means that there has been increased pressure on, and restrictions on, immigration to the UK from outside the EU. In a fairer world we wouldn't have one set of (essentially nonexistent) restrictions on part of the world and then a much stricter set of criteria for the rest of the world. Again, an immigration system that treats all of the world equally may or may not benefit the UK, but it's a fairer system which doesn't discriminate against the developing world.

 

[MikeG]

In order for Brexit to be made into a success it must bring something to the table. Trampling on labor rights can make economy more competitive and it's been made possible by leaving the EU. If UK doubles down on workers' rights it lost one of the key possible motives for leaving the EU.

What are the other possible benefits of Brexit? I see preciously few.

McHrozni

Which misses the point entirely. No-one needs "benefits" of Brexit. Brexit doesn't have to bring anything to the table. There is no need of discussion of the motives of Brexit. You talk almost as though we are still in pre-referendum campaigning mode. The decision is made, and May simply needs to run the country as well as she can, in or out of the EU.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The same could be said for immigration. Unfettered immigration from the EU means that there has been increased pressure on, and restrictions on, immigration to the UK from outside the EU. In a fairer world we wouldn't have one set of (essentially nonexistent) restrictions on part of the world and then a much stricter set of criteria for the rest of the world. Again, an immigration system that treats all of the world equally may or may not benefit the UK, but it's a fairer system which doesn't discriminate against the developing world.

No the restrictions on immigration from outside the EU have been increased because and only because the government wished to do so. There was absolutely nothing to stop them having more liberal immigration policies other than them not wanting to and because they actively wanted to discriminate against the developing world.

Full of what the Tories call 'low value people' I suppose.

 

[McHrozni]

Without wishing to speak for MikeG, there are some pro-Brexit people who see Brexit as an opportunity to level the playing field in the UK which has been stacked in favour of developed countries - most notably those in the EU and against developing countries.

A UK which is completely free of EU influence could set up more equitable trading relationships with, for example, African countries as opposed to the horribly one-sided relationships that the EU has. This may or may not work out to be to the benefit of the UK, but for the world in general, and the developing countries who benefit from the new deals, then it's a fairer position.

The same could be said for immigration. Unfettered immigration from the EU means that there has been increased pressure on, and restrictions on, immigration to the UK from outside the EU. In a fairer world we wouldn't have one set of (essentially nonexistent) restrictions on part of the world and then a much stricter set of criteria for the rest of the world. Again, an immigration system that treats all of the world equally may or may not benefit the UK, but it's a fairer system which doesn't discriminate against the developing world.

Sure, I can understand that. But squaring that with a Brexit campaign poster showing lines of refugees from non-EU countries titled "Breaking point", implying UK must shut down borders is rather difficult.

MikeG seems to be convinced Brexit can mean whatever and that all the promises and arguments from the campaigns are null and void. I suspect he doesn't have a clue of what accountability means and how it could backfire on the proponents.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

No the restrictions on immigration from outside the EU have been increased because and only because the government wished to do so. There was absolutely nothing to stop them having more liberal immigration policies other than them not wanting to and because they actively wanted to discriminate against the developing world.

Full of what the Tories call 'low value people' I suppose.

The entire Tory position on the matter is contradictory. They campaigned on leaving the EU because EU let in too many people from third countries. Then after Brexit they turn this around to leveling the playing field of EU with the third world countries (presumably increasing immigration from those as opposed from the continent).

Which one is it, then? Do the borders need to be secured due to the influx of immigrants from the third world or is the EU policy too restrictive towards them? You can have one, the other or even neither, but you can't have both.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

.......MikeG seems to be convinced Brexit can mean whatever and that all the promises and arguments from the campaigns are null and void. I suspect he doesn't have a clue of what accountability means and how it could backfire on the proponents.......

Wrong thread. The government aren't accountable for the promises made during the Brexit campaign by Leave, as they campaigned for Remain. Anything that isn't achieved during the negotiations is going to be the fault of the nasty Europeans anyway, hence "thank goodness we're shot of the EU" is likely to be the public's response to any expectations that are not met.

 

[MikeG]

The entire Tory position on the matter is contradictory. They campaigned on leaving the EU........

Are you rewriting history for the fun of it? The Tories DID NOT campaign to Leave. The Tory government campaigned to remain. That's a very basic fact.

 

[McHrozni]

Are you rewriting history for the fun of it? The Tories DID NOT campaign to Leave. The Tory government campaigned to remain. That's a very basic fact.

Yes, prior to the referendum. After the referendum it engaged Full Retard Mode^TM and did just about every mistake imaginable to ensure Brexit fails for UK so miserably it will become a new word by the end of the decade, synonymous with the Italian city/battle-word caporetto (catastrophic defeat). Promising to create what they promised to dismantle ensures no other scenario is possible.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

I'm surprised because it runs counter to 40+ years of Conservative policy.

The Conservatives have consistently fought to make the labour market "more flexible" in order to make UK industry more competitive. At a point in time when the need to do this is even more important, it seems odd to me that the Conservative Party will seek to hamstring UK Ltd.

The actual wording is now will do more than any other *Conservative * government.....

 

[Aber]

I'm surprised because it runs counter to 40+ years of Conservative policy.

The Conservatives have consistently fought to make the labour market "more flexible" in order to make UK industry more competitive. At a point in time when the need to do this is even more important, it seems odd to me that the Conservative Party will seek to hamstring UK Ltd.

Strangely enough the Conservative party is not monolithic in its views.

We're now going to have a very interesting decade in British politics. In the short term the Labour Party may split; in the medium term the battle to succeed May will be a brutal fight over the direction of the Conservative party between the freemarketers and the centralisers; the Lib Dems will be trying to find some ground to call their own; the SNP will be biding their time to the next referendum, and Wales may get a non-Labour government.

 

[dudalb]

This could be the seed of their downfall come next election. Such large majorities aren't usually popular for long and they will have to deal with the fallout from Brexit they won't be able to easily blame on someone else. Scapegoating the EU can backfire in a rather spectacular way.

On the less optimistic side, such large majorities with these people in charge could lead to Turkey-style reforms...

McHrozni

It's the same situation that the GOP in the US has:Everything that goes wrong is going to blamed on them since they have control.

 

[Noztradamus]

Some of them, but not to the extent that she is a good Prime Minister IMO.

She seems much better at keeping her parliamentary party in line than Corbyn - given that the majority of the party hasn't been in open revolt, she has pwned Corbyn during PMQ, she is currently the Prime Minister and although the government isn't doing what I want it to, it is a functioning government. May doesn't have a history of voting against party policy, she appears more inclined to learn and to work hard than Corbyn.

That said, I don't think she's a good Prime Minister at all, it's just that it appears that she is less worse at it than Corbyn looks to be.

High praise indeed!

 

[McHrozni]

It's the same situation that the GOP in the US has:Everything that goes wrong is going to blamed on them since they have control.

Yes, if the democracy functions well. This is an important unofficial pillar of democracy - vote people out periodically to ensure they don't abuse their power to maintain control. I'm growing concerned that the UK could fall to the populist-absolutist side.

The groundwork is there - a divided country, a significant crisis and the dominance of one political option. I hope that's all it is.

McHrozni