Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[ToffeeTim]

The DUP will want money.

This hysteria about social issues and the GFA is just silly.

It's simply about ££££££

 

[Old Blue 2]

But this the whole thing about the EU Referendum and the recent election.

The Referendum was all about Cameron trying to win the civil war over Europe that had raged inside the Tory party fir decades.

He lost.

May called the election to strengthen her hand in the Brexit negotiations and smite her critics within her her own party.

She lost.

These people care about no one but themselves.

I tend to think May called the election believing she would win with an increased majority very easily, and at the same time throwing the Labour Party into complete disarray once again. If that would have happened, she would have been in an unassailable position (yes I know, stating the bleeding obvious!) which would have fed her ego no end, and given her total control over the Tory Party.

 

[Socrates]

Disappointing to see Michael Gove back in the cabinet. Particularly given his views on environmental issues.

Plus he looks like a frozen jizzwelly filled with sick.

One look at the guy and you just know he eats live mice.

 

[Tubey]

The DUP will want money.

This hysteria about social issues and the GFA is just silly.

It's simply about ££££££

That's not really it though. It's not that people believe their social policies will be imposed on the mainland UK; it's that by giving them such a platform, the Tories are adding credibility to their views by association.

Not only that, in terms of the power sharing agreement, it's also outright dangerous.

 

[neil999]

That's not really it though. It's not that people believe their social policies will be imposed on the mainland UK; it's that by giving them such a platform, the Tories are adding credibility to their views by association.

Not only that, in terms of the power sharing agreement, it's also outright dangerous.

Yep and the majority of the public will see it as a coalition not an 'arrangement' labour will be able to exploit this

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yep and the majority of the public will see it as a coalition not an 'arrangement' labour will be able to exploit this

That may be so if there was an election this autumn, but if they stuck it out for the full term then they'd be judged much more on performance. That said, if they did serve the five years then I'd fully expect Labour to win the next election, if for no other reason than it's rare for parties to survive in government for much longer than that as people tend to yearn for change. It seems increasingly common that parties get at least a couple of terms at a time rather than constant chopping and changing.

 

[The binman chronicles]

That may be so if there was an election this autumn, but if they stuck it out for the full term then they'd be judged much more on performance. That said, if they did serve the five years then I'd fully expect Labour to win the next election, if for no other reason than it's rare for parties to survive in government for much longer than that as people tend to yearn for change. It seems increasingly common that parties get at least a couple of terms at a time rather than constant chopping and changing.

I agree with a lot of that but can't see how you can draw the conclusion that parties generally get a couple of terms instead of chopping and changing nowadays. You had a centrist Labour government that managed to win 3 elections. (& more importantly run to the full length of the term) No guarantees whatsoever that a left leaning one would keep enough middle Englanders happy to vote the same again.

The longest Labour government since the war before Blair's was 6 years. I understand the length of the parliment wasn't fixed and some of those Labour governments did win 2 elections so it's possible one of those could have gone to 10 if put in a modern context. However the UK as a country is not the same place that voted Labour twice back then, the industries that were naturally left leaning have almost all gone with most people aspiring to be middle class. This gives Labour a lot less room to play keeping both sides happy.

It is also the reason that infuriates me that Labour have moved away from the centre as it limits the chance of making real changes and help create a more balanced society. Although I accept that the difference between top and bottom increased during their run in government, unfortunately that is part and parcel of trying to keep everyone happy, I'm sure people will agree the bottom are poorer now than they were under Labour.

If Jez gets in and starts nationalising stuff, what do you think the Tories will do the next time they get in power and if that's after 5 years then it would have been a complete waste of time, manpower and money.

 

[abelard]

I agree with a lot of that but can't see how you can draw the conclusion that parties generally get a couple of terms instead of chopping and changing nowadays. You had a centrist Labour government that managed to win 3 elections. (& more importantly run to the full length of the term) No guarantees whatsoever that a left leaning one would keep enough middle Englanders happy to vote the same again.

The longest Labour government since the war before Blair's was 6 years. I understand the length of the parliment wasn't fixed and some of those Labour governments did win 2 elections so it's possible one of those could have gone to 10 if put in a modern context. However the UK as a country is not the same place that voted Labour twice back then, the industries that were naturally left leaning have almost all gone with most people aspiring to be middle class. This gives Labour a lot less room to play keeping both sides happy.

It is also the reason that infuriates me that Labour have moved away from the centre as it limits the chance of making real changes and help create a more balanced society. Although I accept that the difference between top and bottom increased during their run in government, unfortunately that is part and parcel of trying to keep everyone happy, I'm sure people will agree the bottom are poorer now than they were under Labour.

If Jez gets in and starts nationalising stuff, what do you think the Tories will do the next time they get in power and if that's after 5 years then it would have been a complete waste of time, manpower and money.

Do you really think there's anyone else in Labour who could have outperformed Corbyn last week?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree with a lot of that but can't see how you can draw the conclusion that parties generally get a couple of terms instead of chopping and changing nowadays. You had a centrist Labour government that managed to win 3 elections. (& more importantly run to the full length of the term) No guarantees whatsoever that a left leaning one would keep enough middle Englanders happy to vote the same again.

The longest Labour government since the war before Blair's was 6 years. I understand the length of the parliment wasn't fixed and some of those Labour governments did win 2 elections so it's possible one of those could have gone to 10 if put in a modern context. However the UK as a country is not the same place that voted Labour twice back then, the industries that were naturally left leaning have almost all gone with most people aspiring to be middle class. This gives Labour a lot less room to play keeping both sides happy.

It is also the reason that infuriates me that Labour have moved away from the centre as it limits the chance of making real changes and help create a more balanced society. Although I accept that the difference between top and bottom increased during their run in government, unfortunately that is part and parcel of trying to keep everyone happy, I'm sure people will agree the bottom are poorer now than they were under Labour.

If Jez gets in and starts nationalising stuff, what do you think the Tories will do the next time they get in power and if that's after 5 years then it would have been a complete waste of time, manpower and money.

I'm basing that purely on the Thatcher-Blair-Cameron run, with each of those three governments exceeding 10 years in office. As that goes back nearly 40 years it's perhaps right to call it a trend?

Whether a Labour administration under Corbyn would continue that I really don't know, but it seems a trend that the floating voters get taken in by promises of the opposition so give them a chance, that logic lasts for a while until either no change occurs or any change gets normalised (and thus underappreciated), at which point the lure of the opposition rises again.

What worries me is the general tenor of the past few years. Being born in 1979, my lifetime has been defined by economic liberalisation (Thatcher) and social liberalisation (Blair). Thatcher forced Labour to become more liberal economically, and Labour then forced Cameron to be more liberal socially. Now we've got both parties breaking with both of those trends, with anti-immigrant rhetoric, economic interventionism and so on. Trump is the obvious bellwether for the trend, but it's here too due to Brexit, and its a sad direction to go in.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Do you really think there's anyone else in Labour who could have outperformed Corbyn last week?

Yes! If Corbyn was not around and from the start they picked a Burnham/Cooper type that was more centre-left and they didn't have nearly two years squabbling about the direction, then why not?

You can still appeal to the youth as the social record was horrendous, still try to win Tory hearts and minds. (well minds! )

But most likely there wouldn't have been an election had Labour been stronger. Don't confuse the electorate wanting to give the government a bloody nose to radical change is upon us.

Corbyn has proved it may be possible for him to be PM but he would need the correct circumstances for that to happen. Brexit outcome, further meltdown of the Tories?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes! If Corbyn was not around and from the start they picked a Burnham/Cooper type that was more centre-left and they didn't have nearly two years squabbling about the direction, then why not?

You can still appeal to the youth as the social record was horrendous, still try to win Tory hearts and minds. (well minds! )

But most likely there wouldn't have been an election had Labour been stronger. Don't confuse the electorate wanting to give the government a bloody nose to radical change is upon us.

Corbyn has proved it may be possible for him to be PM but he would need the correct circumstances for that to happen. Brexit outcome, further meltdown of the Tories?

I think this is potentially an important point. I know it's always difficult to ascertain why people voted how they did, but I do wonder how many Labour votes were for Corbyn, and how many Labour votes were against May?

 

[The binman chronicles]

I'm basing that purely on the Thatcher-Blair-Cameron run, with each of those three governments exceeding 10 years in office. As that goes back nearly 40 years it's perhaps right to call it a trend?

Whether a Labour administration under Corbyn would continue that I really don't know, but it seems a trend that the floating voters get taken in by promises of the opposition so give them a chance, that logic lasts for a while until either no change occurs or any change gets normalised (and thus underappreciated), at which point the lure of the opposition rises again.

What worries me is the general tenor of the past few years. Being born in 1979, my lifetime has been defined by economic liberalisation (Thatcher) and social liberalisation (Blair). Thatcher forced Labour to become more liberal economically, and Labour then forced Cameron to be more liberal socially. Now we've got both parties breaking with both of those trends, with anti-immigrant rhetoric, economic interventionism and so on. Trump is the obvious bellwether for the trend, but it's here too due to Brexit, and its a sad direction to go in.

I suppose you right you can say 40 years is a trend but I see it more as an anomaly caused by one side having a leader unpalatable to the public (Foot/Kinnock on one side, Howard/Hague/IDS on the other) and the convergence to the centre that made little point in selecting a new one over the incumbent. If/as we move back to more clearly defined positions on the spectrum then we may not get the long spells in government as long as they don't keep on choosing leaders that the public won't take to. We are now in an X factor style competition and the parties would be wise to understand that before picking the next leaders.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I suppose you right you can say 40 years is a trend but I see it more as an anomaly caused by one side having a leader unpalatable to the public (Foot/Kinnock on one side, Howard/Hague/IDS on the other) and the convergence to the centre that made little point in selecting a new one over the incumbent. If/as we move back to more clearly defined positions on the spectrum then we may not get the long spells in government as long as they don't keep on choosing leaders that the public won't take to. We are now in an X factor style competition and the parties would be wise to understand that before picking the next leaders.

It's a peculiar time in many ways as I'm not sure the Labour manifesto was very 'working class'. Things like the tuition fees and anti-elderly care tax thing were both huge sops to the middle classes, as indeed was the triple lock pension pledge. Likewise the Tories abandoned business en masse, adopted industrial interventionist policies last used by Miliband and their elderly care tax/end of the triple lock was an attack on their core constituency.

Yes, the Tories went after immigrants and Labour wanted to soak the rich, but there was also rather a lot that broke from past scripts for both parties.

 

[tsubaki]

Yes! If Corbyn was not around and from the start they picked a Burnham/Cooper type that was more centre-left and they didn't have nearly two years squabbling about the direction, then why not?

You can still appeal to the youth as the social record was horrendous, still try to win Tory hearts and minds. (well minds! )

But most likely there wouldn't have been an election had Labour been stronger. Don't confuse the electorate wanting to give the government a bloody nose to radical change is upon us.

Corbyn has proved it may be possible for him to be PM but he would need the correct circumstances for that to happen. Brexit outcome, further meltdown of the Tories?

There probably wouldn't have been an election, but none of the other four leadership candidates would have run on that manifesto or deliberately courted people who didn't usually turn up to vote. I am almost certain that none of them would have done as much to repair Labour as a political party either (in terms of bringing the membership numbers back up and restoring the finances), or brought as many former Labour voters back into the fold.

I think this is potentially an important point. I know it's always difficult to ascertain why people voted how they did, but I do wonder how many Labour votes were for Corbyn, and how many Labour votes were against May?

In August last year Yougov asked former Labour voters why they weren't going to vote Labour:

It is striking that most of those responses correlated closely with things that the media had told them, and that almost all of them went away once the election was called (people seeing Corbyn for himself, and not pre-described by the media - and also the strike the PLP held, which had the effect of making Labour look far less divided when it mattered because the PLP werent presenting an alternative voice every five seconds).

 

[The binman chronicles]

I think this is potentially an important point. I know it's always difficult to ascertain why people voted how they did, but I do wonder how many Labour votes were for Corbyn, and how many Labour votes were against May?

And how many Tories voted in protest as they didn't want a hard brexit or her absolute failure to show up during the campaign. Same can be said about other parties too.

It's something that is very difficult to tell compared to previous elections.