the snap general election thread

Fella

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Labour have left themselves with some explaining to do. Given the scale of the financial commitments in their manifesto. Will be the main battle ground in the run up to election day.

My guess is the Tories will focus on Brexit as there's no way Labour would deliver anything like the Brexit most people want. People still believe that May would.

But as has been mentioned before, Social media & polls have recently heavily favoured the liberal elite (something which Corbyn's Labour are firmly a part of) but they still go their !!! handed to them on a plate in the last UK election, the EU referendum & the Trump election. I suspect shy Tory syndrome is still alive & well.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What austerity? A whole generation of people don't know what a recession is. The squeeze has barely begun.

Lol!
Enlighten me, what's in store for us?
I would suggest that given we're merely half way through Tory austerity, there will be a reaction politically if not at this election then at the next. My own personal view is that eventually the people will not countenance the size of state the Tories have planned and will vote accordingly.

Thrugelmir

Fella wrote: »

My guess is the Tories will focus on Brexit as there's no way Labour would deliver anything like the Brexit most people want. People still believe that May would.

Corbyn is somewhat reluctant to provide detail on immigration. A stance that may backfire in the traditional heartlands outside of London.

setmefree2

kabayiri wrote: »

The most obvious coallition for Labour is one with the SNP. They are both socialist in nature, after all.

The thing is - they said that is why Ed lost 2 years ago - because it looked like the LP would form a coalition with the SNP.

The undoing of Ed Miliband – and how Labour lost the election

Labour’s focus groups were still finding that Tory attacks on Miliband’s leadership had not had the intended effect. But in mid-April, the Conservatives finally found a charge that stuck: the threat of the SNP. With the polls unanimously pointing to a hung parliament, the SNP provided a more vivid way to play on fears about Miliband’s leadership and Labour’s economic record. “If the polls had reflected reality, it would have been a totally different campaign,” one of Miliband’s close advisers said. “The agenda would have been about a second Tory term” – and what that might mean for the NHS, Europe, tax credits and Scotland. Instead, it turned into a referendum on the risks of a minority Labour government. This had long been Douglas Alexander’s worst fear.
Miliband’s team admitted that they were slow to realise the danger. One close adviser admitted that hewas initially perplexed as to why posters were appearing all over English towns that depicted Miliband in the pocket of Alex Salmond. “They stumbled on this SNP thing. We did not realise how much impact it would have, and perhaps they did not realise how much,” the close adviser said. “It was going to persuade 2.5% of the [electorate previously allied to Ukip] to go back into the Tory fold. It made us the risk.”
Miliband had first ruled out a coalition with the SNP on 16 March, but it was not until 26 April that he also ruled out a confidence and supply agreement between the two parties. Even then, the question refused to go away. Shadow ministers were being asked whether there would be implicit understandings between the two parties, or whether they would even speak to SNP MPs in the corridors of Westminster. The party’s focus groups also showed that voters did not believe Miliband’s denials, since they did not think he would ever spurn the chance to be prime minister.
Fixation with the aftermath of the election soon began to drown out everything else. Labour’s announcements on key issues, such as the NHS, were falling flat. “We were getting inside-page leads and number three or four on the broadcasts,” one adviser said.
Ed Balls was particularly frustrated that none of his attacks on Tory cuts were gaining traction. “We tried really hard to change the subject, but the SNP just led the news day in and day out,” said a shadow treasury adviser. “If it was not David Cameron or George Osborne saying it, there was Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond or Nick Clegg – all using the same lines. There was no doubt in our mind that the party of the union and the party of separation were deliberately echoing each other’s lines.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/03/undoing-of-ed-miliband-and-how-labour-lost-election

Fella

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Corbyn is somewhat reluctant to provide detail on immigration. A stance that may backfire in the traditional heartlands outside of London.

Corbyn has far more to lose than the Tories if the debate turns to homeland security. He repeatedly voted against anti-terrorism measures re the IRA & calls Hamas & Hezbollah "friends". I'm amazed & revolted in equal measure that him & his vile cabal of advisors have chosen to use this week's events to try to win a few votes. Although I don't honestly know why, he's a nasty piece of scum, always has been, and all he's done today is prove it yet again.

setmefree2

kabayiri wrote: »

The most obvious coallition for Labour is one with the SNP. They are both socialist in nature, after all.

Thing is, I don't trust the SNP in terms of Brexit. They are clearly going to use this period to push for independence, and how does a supposedly Unionist party like Labour reconcile that?

Would Corbyn be willing to break the Union for power?

You can bet that the EU would harden their negotiating stance if they saw a potentially fragile coallition. Why wouldn't they?

If the LP win - there won't be any Brexit - we will do a Norway plus we will stay in the CU.

sevenhills

kabayiri wrote: »

Doesn't the choice become one of damage limitation then?
If I fear over ambition, then don't I choose the least risky option?

Which is?

The Tory focus on cutting immigration risked a £6bn hit to the exchequer, reported in the Guardian, could see it on the BBC site.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/26/conservative-labour-tax-spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Corbyn is somewhat reluctant to provide detail on immigration. A stance that may backfire in the traditional heartlands outside of London.

You ought to read the Labour manifesto. There's a section on immigration. You could quite easily substitute the word 'Labour' for 'Conservative' and you'd be none the wiser.

The only thing that's missing is an immigration target which the Tories chose to include but as they've never met their immigration targets I'm not sure why anyone would expect them to this time.

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Labour%20Manifesto%202017.pdf

mayonnaise

Fella wrote: »

My guess is the Tories will focus on Brexit as there's no way Labour would deliver anything like the Brexit most people want.

The Brexit most people want is either a soft one or no Brexit at all.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Doesn't the choice become one of damage limitation then?

The IFS aren't saying the Labour/ Tory manifestos are damaging but rather, as politely as they can, saying they're both a bunch of unjustified story telling lies.

The choice is between who can lie most convincingly - again.