General Election 2017

[Mellotron]

[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] may not like this, but I AM claiming a win, for the left.

Not that 'we' won the election - obviously, but that the Government's reckless and complacent attitude, that they had (or thought they could snap their fingers and achieve) a mandate to do whatever the hell they wanted, with Brexit, the NHS, fox hunting and anything else has received a sound kicking.

They may cling to power of course, but they will have to reign themselves in, which will be to the good of us all. They may well have to call another election very soon, in which the worst excesses of their original manifesto will have to be binned. They will have to shift back towards the centre-ground to perform better next time round, which again is a GOOD thing for US.

A win.

Frankly bizarre to suggest otherwise, given the nation's narrative over the past 2 years. It's unquestionably a win. Time will tell just how big a win it is...

 

[Triggaaar]

There's zero chance of getting a hard Brexit through parliament with their current numbers.

But they don't have to do they? Whatever deal is agreed does not then need to be agreed by parliament, they've already voted to let the government do the negotiations.

 

[Bozza]

So this is it, isn't it?

May says "yes" to Liz and she's officially Prime Minister leading a minority government.

(Asking for a friend who has a lot of cash tied up currently)

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'd like that were it to work, but is that really what's going to happen? My concern is (and it trumps my distaste for some of the Tory policies) is what's going to happen with Brexit. Aren't you at all worried?

In what way?

I'm MASSIVELY on the Remain side of the fence, and wish the whole thing could be overturned. A watering down of May's ridiculous little-Englander vision can only be a good thing.

 

[CHAPPERS]

So what does the Queen think of the DUP?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But they don't have to do they? Whatever deal is agreed does not then need to be agreed by parliament, they've already voted to let the government do the negotiations.

I thought the final deal had to be voted on as well? I.e. the point of the election was to give her a bigger majority for such an event? Otherwise what was the need for a bigger majority?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Knowing what we all know now, would anyone change the party they voted for?

Nope. Proud to have voted Labour for the first time in 20 years and really proud of the campaign my local party and the candidate put up.

 

[McTavish]

it doesn't matter whether he was right or not, his MPs wanted him gone and he stayed through self interest.

Or, he stayed because the majority of the party members wanted him to...

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So what does the Queen think of the DUP?

I'm wondering what she thinks of the bloody Tory party keep on turning up on her door step claiming they can run her country.

 

[seagulls4ever]

Maybe (I'll come back to that), but it doesn't matter whether he was right or not, his MPs wanted him gone and he stayed through self interest. It's the same attitude he's showing now in saying that he should now be the Prime Minister. I'm sorry Jeremy, you didn't ****ing win!

Has he been vindicated? Well he's done better than expected and better than the last Labour leader, so he certainly has a case, but as May thought she'd win thanks to Corbyn, I think Corbyn has done better than expected thanks to May.

They have no choice but to back him now.

Except the grassroots didn't want him gone and he stayed for them to change the political landscape in this country. And it's the grassroots that's helped Labour do so well, relatively speaking, despite so many against. I don't think that's self serving. He clearly deeply cares about many social issues and stayed to push through with them. To have gone he would have betrayed the Labour party members.

It was only yesterday you were saying May was performing well in interviews etc.

 

[ManOfSussex]

He's loving it.

[tweet]873126778717392896[/tweet]

 

[NooBHA]

If I were in the Scottish Labour Party I'd be having quiet words with Ruth Davidson about what it would take for her to defect - she's an outstanding politician. She's also a Remainer and in favour of some state intervention in business. I bet, given her personal circumstances, she's not best pleased (to put in mildly) with the Tories getting in bed with the DUP.

I've no idea how personally committed she is to the Conservatives and whether she's ambitious to rise in the party outside Scotland, but if she's showing any signs of being unhappy, Labour should try to accommodate her, she'd be worth thousands of votes.

All good and correct. I like her as well. The problem with your suggestion is that ''Defectors'' get slaughtered by the media for being seen as disloyal and people begin to disbelieve what they are saying because they are only too willing to do a ''U-turn'' on anything the might be saying in the future.

 

[Triggaaar]

In what way?

I'm MASSIVELY on the Remain side of the fence, and wish the whole thing could be overturned. A watering down of May's ridiculous little-Englander vision can only be a good thing.

I'd like soft-Brexit (I think we could have got that with May anyway, as she'd have to back down from her starting point - she was a remainer too, so I don't see why she'd really want hard-Brexit), so watered down is fine by me. My concern is that it won't be watered down, it will just be a shit deal for the UK, as we've lost our unity.

I thought the final deal had to be voted on as well? I.e. the point of the election was to give her a bigger majority for such an event? Otherwise what was the need for a bigger majority?

Ok, maybe you're right. For some reason I thought the government could do the deal in private.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I thought the final deal had to be voted on as well? I.e. the point of the election was to give her a bigger majority for such an event? Otherwise what was the need for a bigger majority?

May said it would back in Feb/March.

Not that that means anything....

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

I think the last thing we can accuse Corbyn of is self-interest. He really does seem to believe in his policies being the best for all, not just for him and his mates.

Exactly, it was the self interest of "moderate" Labour MPs that wanted him gone thinking that his style of politics would be a disaster for the voting public. I hope the first thing they do this morning is thank him for keeping them in a job and making the Labour party relevant again. Still a long way to go, but at least they surely know what direction to take.

 

[Bold Seagull]

George has gone all hell hath no fury like a chancellor scorned...

[tweet]873126778717392896[/tweet]

 

[Gwylan]

All good and correct. I like her as well. The problem with your suggestion is that ''Defectors'' get slaughtered by the media for being seen as disloyal and people begin to disbelieve what they are saying

Oh, I don't know ... Churchill did all right

 

[Bodian]

I thought the final deal had to be voted on as well? I.e. the point of the election was to give her a bigger majority for such an event? Otherwise what was the need for a bigger majority?

There was no need. Merely an opportunistic wish to thrash Labour and look big.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Ok, maybe you're right. For some reason I thought the government could do the deal in private.

You thought that the negotiation of returning full sovereignty to the UK could be done by bypassing UK sovereignty?

 

[TotallyFreaked]

I've been thinking about this a bit as well.

It reminds me of the odd occasion I go to church, as I did two weeks ago. I'd never heard of Wargrave before I drove there for a christening and by way of coincidence it turns out it's part of Theresa May's Maidenhead constituency. I see very few young people attending church, and I wonder "where will the next generation of church goers come from?"

The young have always tended more to the left than the right, haven't they? If so, then I'm also assuming there must be a drift to the right, for some, as they get older. Again, I fully concede I'm making big assumptions here.

For the young who became engaged this time round, I guess it may depend on whether they view their efforts were worth it this time. As it stands, they are not getting all the free things, they're not getting £27,000 of tuition fees and that Corbyn fella they've latched onto is not going to be Prime Minister. That could all change, of course, but as of today they're still likely to have that ghastly Theresa May woman running the country. Might some return to disenfranchisement?

I agree though - I'd be more worried about obtaining votes if I was sitting in Conservative HQ this afternoon.

I think it is a bit unfair to imply that young voters are only voting for Corbyn and the Labour party because of free tuition fees. There was a large movement towards Corbyn way before the manifesto was announced and I think they are voting for not only their own personal circumstances but also what they feel will be a fairer society.

Personally I think it is fantastic that they are engaging in politics and what will shape their future. I have no more problem with their optimistic progressive thinking as I have with an older voter who might lean towards more conservative (small c) thinking. I think the balance and future direction comes from the discussion between all generations.