General Election 2017

[Theatre of Trees]

Our political system only recognises winners if they pass the 326 seats mark. If this is not achieved then the largest party gets first dibs at piecing together a coalition that reaches that number. If the largest party fails to do this, then the second largest party gets to have a go. There is a precedent for this, the first election of 1974 when Heath 'won' but failed to reach the number of seats required. When he failed to put together a coalition then the onus fell on Wilson to form a government, which he did until another election was called 6 months later.

If the Conservatives and DUP do form a coalition then they will have 317 (Current Speaker is Conservative and not counted) + 10. There is also an Independent Unionist who will probably vote with the government. That gives them 328. The opposition combined = 321 minus the seven Sinn Fein who never take their seats at Westminster. That in effect is 328 vs 314 which gives the Government a wriggle room of 7/8. If you take into account the difference between a hard and soft Brexit then already within the Government there are divisions as neither the DUP or Scottish Conservatives want a hard exit, in effect 22 votes, and that's without the divisions replicated within the English and Welsh sections of the party. Coalitions require consensus and the ability to make deals, neither of which are May's strong point given the stories appearing over the weekend, but are inherently weak as the smaller parties can gain leverage and block bills. It's going to be an interesting ride.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Corbyn offering to form a government was meant to signal that he and labour are ready and willing. It was not a 'power grab' (the person who claimed that is guilty of all the thing Biggully was accusing the left (above) - spite against labour etc). There is only one way to 'grab' power in this country, and that is to be elected. I loathed Thatcher but I would never accue her of 'grabbing' power - that would be pathetic.

At the moment there is little point attacking labour, other than to scaremonger before the inevitable election that will come later this year. Labour have been out of power for 7 (SEVEN) years. The state of the UK, it's three fold increase in national debt, the chaos over Brexit, and the (badly) hung parliament are all features of the conservative watch. Life is not all bad (certainly for me, but my house is paid for) and I would not pretend the tories have done nothing but bad. But in terms of where we are now, they are the worst government of all time, and no amount of lashing out at 'IRA Corbyn' and 'Islamist terrorist Khan' etc will change that

Fact.

Next.......

http://http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Think you need to understand this. Fact..

 

[lawros left foot]

It comes down to can a party get the queens speech through parliament. Now, the Tories may say to the DUP we don't want any agreement, just get us through the queens speech, otherwise, the risk to the DUP is another election and the outside risk of a Labour government with Corbyn. That will focus their minds.

Is it ideal - no. But I don't think the Tories will allow too much influence from the DUP as they only have 10 seats.

Look, however anyone spins this from their own 'bias' viewpoint, we're in a bad place for the country, as the BREXIT talks need to start ASAP. TM f*cked up and I want her gone. However, I dread the impact to our economy if Corbyn/McDonald got anywhere near power,

The whole reason we are in a bad place, is because the last 2 Tory PMs have taken the electorate for granted, call me Dave's disastrous referendum decision, and a pathetic remain campaign, and Mays decision to have a GE, for purely party political reasons, which, although she won, she no where near achieved her goals. For some on here to criticise Labour for taking advantage of the shambles created by the inept governance of the Conservatives, is frankly, laughable, and , I remember the glee amongst the Tories when Cornyn was elected by a huge majority of Labour members, not once but twice. Another thought on the result of the election, Labour shares a mainly left of centre platform, with the SNP,the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens, the Tories only right of centre opposition is UKIP, who, in all honesty, are a one policy, busted flush. I think given this, Labour did far better than the Cons to get to 262 seats, if you consider the amount of competition for the left of centre vote.

 

[Questions]

It's possibly after the banning of people walking to the next village after Church on Sunday one, maybe.

Bonfire processions, Jack In The Green - I'm looking forward to seeing Amber Rudd on an Orange March in Hastings next.

Do the DUP realise that there are Catholics in the Conservative party ? Will they ask for compulsory attendances in all towns and villages on Guy Fawkes night. Never mind Brexit talks we'll have to sort out whether they are still wanting to arrest young Irish girls who come to the mainland for pregnancy terminations.

 

[lawros left foot]

Our political system only recognises winners if they pass the 326 seats mark. If this is not achieved then the largest party gets first dibs at piecing together a coalition that reaches that number. If the largest party fails to do this, then the second largest party gets to have a go. There is a precedent for this, the first election of 1974 when Heath 'won' but failed to reach the number of seats required. When he failed to put together a coalition then the onus fell on Wilson to form a government, which he did until another election was called 6 months later.

If the Conservatives and DUP do form a coalition then they will have 317 (Current Speaker is Conservative and not counted) + 10. There is also an Independent Unionist who will probably vote with the government. That gives them 328. The opposition combined = 321 minus the seven Sinn Fein who never take their seats at Westminster. That in effect is 328 vs 314 which gives the Government a wriggle room of 7/8. If you take into account the difference between a hard and soft Brexit then already within the Government there are divisions as neither the DUP or Scottish Conservatives want a hard exit, in effect 22 votes, and that's without the divisions replicated within the English and Welsh sections of the party. Coalitions require consensus and the ability to make deals, neither of which are May's strong point given the stories appearing over the weekend, but are inherently weak as the smaller parties can gain leverage and block bills. It's going to be an interesting ride.

This,


For some reason I can't thumbs up, but, I would if I could.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think it was - the immigration issue was debated quite clearly IMO. You may see it differently, but to me, the issue of Free Movement was a central one to the leave campaign.

The issue was central to the campaign, but that doesn't mean it was the reason for everyone who voted leave.

I find it slightly depressing that so many people try and tell us that the leave vote meant we don't want free movement, or exactly what it meant. It makes no ****ing difference what Farage said about leaving, my vote to leave the EU was just that, a vote to leave the EU. Not a vote to agree with Farage, not a vote to agree with Boris, or anything they said, just a vote to leave the EU. I had my reasons, and of course others that voted to leave would have had different reasons.

We can speculate about the exact percentage of leavers that wanted hard Brexit, and leavers that wanted soft Brexit, but you what you have to accept is that it is a mix, we didn't all want hard Brexit. Presumably nearly all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one, so I'm quite sure that the majority of the voters overall would prefer soft Brexit.

So yes, we can implement a BREXIT deal without taking control of immigration.

The discussion relating to an Australian style of immigration was discussed in the TV debates for example.

As above, that makes no difference. We had to select leave or remain, we didn't get to qualify what it meant, and what someone said on TV is not relevant.

Ideally, we will keep open trade between the EU and UK, but that's it. However, this is something unpalatable to the EU, so, unless there are big compromises, I struggle to see an easy solution.

The solution is we keep free trade and keep the free movement of people. That's what the majority of us want.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Do the DUP realise that there are Catholics in the Conservative party ? Will they ask for compulsory attendances in all towns and villages on Guy Fawkes night. Never mind Brexit talks we'll have to sort out whether they are still wanting to arrest young Irish girls who come to the mainland for pregnancy terminations.

I was wondering if the 12th of July will become a public holiday here too now.

 

[whitelion]

I was wondering if the 12th of July will become a public holiday here too now.

At least it'll keep Lewes Bonfire Society busy.

 

[lawros left foot]

One more thought on this election, or, more to the point, the next one, if the five left of centre parties could make an agreement for a progressive alliance, only one opposition candidate up against the Tories in each constituency, would they win?
I realise it ain't gonna happen, but it would be interesting.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

One more thought on this election, or, more to the point, the next one, if the five left of centre parties could make an agreement for a progressive alliance, only one opposition candidate up against the Tories in each constituency, would they win?
I realise it ain't gonna happen, but it would be interesting.

What would be the platform ? What does 'progressive alliance' mean ? The liberals are unlikely to agree to large increases in public spending and the consequent interest rate rises. Labour is committed to leaving the EU (JC is a lifelong leaver) and that cannot be reconciled with the liberals, SNP etc. If this election has taught us anything it is that politicians have to be positively in favour of something not just anti Tory or whatever else. JC should stick to his principles and wait
for the Tory/DUP alliance to fail.

 

[lawros left foot]

What would be the platform ? What does 'progressive alliance' mean ? The liberals are unlikely to agree to large increases in public spending and the consequent interest rate rises. Labour is committed to leaving the EU (JC is a lifelong leaver) and that cannot be reconciled with the liberals, SNP etc. If this election has taught us anything it is that politicians have to be positively in favour of something not just anti Tory or whatever else. JC should stick to his principles and wait
for the Tory/DUP alliance to fail.

I know it is an impossibility, but it would be interesting

 

[peterward]

http://http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Think you need to understand this. Fact..

Your link doesn't work.

Are you really going to stand with a straight face and try and convince people the Torys cleaning up the worst and deepest recession in almost 100 years, that they inherited is still worse than the Labour Government of the 1970's?

As for national debt, the size of the national debt is not a true indicator of or against economic competence. It is national debt vs deficit vs economic output/Gdp.

The worse economy in the G20 inherited with the "there is no money left" note, has been transformed into the best performing in the G20 by fiscal competence and the economy has grown in a tough low yield global environment.

If you earn £1000 quid per month but spend £1800 with borrowing of 80% or £800 per month. Your structural deficit is 80%. Then a few years later with hard choices you now earn £3000 per month but borrow 40% or £1200 your debt PM is increasing by 50% but your deficit is going down. Based on increased output/gdp. Position B is far better than position A, your debt as a % of earnings/output is less.

If bloke A earns 10 grand a year and spend 18000 with 8 grand borrowed. He's in a much worse predicament than the bloke with 30 grand salary and spending of 42k and debt of 12.even though bloke B's debt in real terms is 50% higher.

 

[peterward]

I think it was a victory for Corbyn himself after how unpopular he seemed to be only a few months ago. It wasn't really a victory for Labour, since they didn't win a majority, but it did show that Labour are not dead and can form a government in the near future. It was the first time they'd won seats in a long time, after all. And they won a lot of seats in England, in places they really shouldn't have won.

I don't think Corbyn is popular enough to become PM and I think if there's an election soon the result will be the same sort of thing. If the Tories cling on for five years in a minority government, Labour with a new leader will most likely manage a majority.

As much as if Rotherham who were getting battered each week drew a prem side in the cup and everyone forecasted a 10-0, on the day the favourites have many second stringers and had a shocking performance and Rotherham only lose 3-1 claiming that they're better than expected performance against a weakend side and that they scored 1 as somehow a victory...... Before later saying they now deserve to go through to the next round?

 

[larus]

The issue was central to the campaign, but that doesn't mean it was the reason for everyone who voted leave.

I find it slightly depressing that so many people try and tell us that the leave vote meant we don't want free movement, or exactly what it meant. It makes no ****ing difference what Farage said about leaving, my vote to leave the EU was just that, a vote to leave the EU. Not a vote to agree with Farage, not a vote to agree with Boris, or anything they said, just a vote to leave the EU. I had my reasons, and of course others that voted to leave would have had different reasons.

We can speculate about the exact percentage of leavers that wanted hard Brexit, and leavers that wanted soft Brexit, but you what you have to accept is that it is a mix, we didn't all want hard Brexit. Presumably nearly all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one, so I'm quite sure that the majority of the voters overall would prefer soft Brexit.

So yes, we can implement a BREXIT deal without taking control of immigration.

As above, that makes no difference. We had to select leave or remain, we didn't get to qualify what it meant, and what someone said on TV is not relevant.

The solution is we keep free trade and keep the free movement of people. That's what the majority of us want.

You have made the assumption that everyone who voted remain wanted everything which the EU offers. I wuld suggest that is not the case and many were voting remain out of fear due to the doom and gloom being espoused from the remain campaign (£30bln emergency budget, economy crashing, interest rates going up, house price crash, etc.). So, I accept that we cannot know exactly what everyone wants from BREXIT, but the same applies to the Remain voters.

The question was simple - Leave/Remain. The interpretation of this is very wide ranging, and, no matter what either of our opinions are, that's all they are. Our own opinion and not facts. So saying that this is what the majority wants is purely an opinion.

 

[larus]

I was wondering if the 12th of July will become a public holiday here too now.

I was wondering if Corbyn and McDonald were leading a government if they would create terrorist training camps so that conflicts can be resolved by the "ballot, bomb or bullet". See, it's so easy to write c*nt statements and make out we're really funny.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Due to the young vote the gap was always going to get narrower.
But if the Tory press and the Tories had kept their mouths shut instead of the constant childish scaremongering and negative campaigning then they would have got a majority.
Serves them right they have taken the public for fools for far too long with Cameron/ Brexit/May and I think a lot of people are sick of it.
The Tories never seem to be as one with the general public, it's like they live in a private golf club and anything they say will be accepted and they never seem to learn.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Your link doesn't work.

Are you really going to stand with a straight face and try and convince people the Torys cleaning up the worst and deepest recession in almost 100 years, that they inherited is still worse than the Labour Government of the 1970's?

As for national debt, the size of the national debt is not a true indicator of or against economic competence. It is national debt vs deficit vs economic output/Gdp.

The worse economy in the G20 inherited with the "there is no money left" note, has been transformed into the best performing in the G20 by fiscal competence and the economy has grown in a tough low yield global environment.

If you earn £1000 quid per month but spend £1800 with borrowing of 80% or £800 per month. Your structural deficit is 80%. Then a few years later with hard choices you now earn £3000 per month but borrow 40% or £1200 your debt PM is increasing by 50% but your deficit is going down. Based on increased output/gdp. Position B is far better than position A, your debt as a % of earnings/output is less.

If bloke A earns 10 grand a year and spend 18000 with 8 grand borrowed. He's in a much worse predicament than the bloke with 30 grand salary and spending of 42k and debt of 12.even though bloke B's debt in real terms is 50% higher.

www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

I think you misunderstand my point I agree with you

 

[Questions]

I was wondering if Corbyn and McDonald were leading a government if they would create terrorist training camps so that conflicts can be resolved by the "ballot, bomb or bullet". See, it's so easy to write c*nt statements and make out we're really funny.

It's not c*nt statements.......... it's C . U . N . T . ........... Conservative and Unionist Negotiating Team........ keep up.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I was wondering if Corbyn and McDonald were leading a government if they would create terrorist training camps so that conflicts can be resolved by the "ballot, bomb or bullet". See, it's so easy to write c*nt statements and make out we're really funny.

The Tories have won the General Election, so there's no need to worry about The Labour party now, is there? Why still focus on them, when there's so many positives to accentuate on from the strong and stable Government we now have?

 

[BigGully]

Due to the young vote the gap was always going to get narrower.
But if the Tory press and the Tories had kept their mouths shut instead of the constant childish scaremongering and negative campaigning then they would have got a majority.
Serves them right they have taken the public for fools for far too long with Cameron/ Brexit/May and I think a lot of people are sick of it.
The Tories never seem to be as one with the general public, it's like they live in a private golf club and anything they say will be accepted and they never seem to learn.

Typical post, you make a generalised and inevitabely derogatory comments on the Tories and Brexit and by implication those that voted for them, almost as if you cannot accept that they out polled Labour and Leave outpolled Remain.