the snap general election thread

ukcarper

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I cannot see how the SNP could be in a coalition in Westminster.
More probably (in this situation), it could push a minority Labour government with SNP supporting policies that are in alignment with SNP policy i.e. Tuition fees etc.

The more realistic scenario for a minority government is that it would be a Conservative minority (as they will still hold the most seats), but they would have to work a lot more to get concensus across the parties.

I tend to agree about SNP that's why I said possibility, but I can't see the Conservative minority government working. Calling this election could be the worse thing for the country and Conservatives that Teresa May could have done.

setmefree2

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Corbyn but he seems to be doing something right so much so we could now be faced with a hung parliament with the possibility that the SNP might share power.

It's populism - tell people they can have lots of sweeties and "the rich" will pay. Of course, "the rich" can't pay - there aren't enough of us.

Also it's like all "the rich" were born with a silver spoon in their mouths so they deserve to pay because they were privileged. I was born working class - I did not have a privileged up bringing. But apparently I should not be allowed to prosper from my hard work.

wotsthat

setmefree2 wrote: »

If they polls stay the same there will be a hung parliament - and I'm sorry I can't see there being a Brexit. The SNP will see to that.

However, Brexit will not go away. Or will it? Maybe voters don't really care enough to have flip flopped so much in 12 months?

A hung parliament will be bad for the economy as the UK will have to engage further in it's now most popular pastime - navel gazing.

There could be a unity government between Labour and the Tories designed to last until the UK leaves the EU. Doesn't sound very likely I know but seems more likely than any coalition with the SNP in it.

The SNP's reason to be is independence - I don't believe Labour or the Tories would be so desperate.

Moby

Fella wrote: »

I think I've already partly answered that: by the time Corbyn flip-flopped & said he would appear she was in a corner. All we're hearing today is about her not appearing, but if she had then all we'd have been hearing about is how she U-Turns on everything.

Add to that she's simply not very good at debating on her feet. She's been flattered in PMQs by the fact that Corbyn is even worse.

Personally I don't think it has much bearing on the Brexit negotiations which will be based on business, not on trying to win elections. May would at least deliver Brexit, something that Labour either wouldn't do at all or wouldn't do in a way that satisfied anybody who voted to leave. That's the point the Tories need to keep hammering home from now.

The problem for May is that the people she'll be negotiating with have had an armchair seat observing her crash and burn in the campaign. Instead of being 'strong and stable' she's been exposed as 'weak and wobbly'. The 27 will have her for breakfast. The problem she has as well is she's already made enemies of them so it seems a 'no deal' exit is a real possibility. That will have huge consequences for us as a country.

ukcarper

setmefree2 wrote: »

It's populism - tell people they can have lots of sweeties and "the rich" will pay. Of course, "the rich" can't pay - there aren't enough of us.

Also it's like all "the rich" were born with a silver spoon in their mouths so they deserve to pay because they were privileged. I was born working class - I did not have a privileged up bringing. But apparently I should not be allowed to prosper from my hard work.

Probably true but instead of harking on about the IRA they should be countering his planned spending with more detail and provide more detail on thier taxation and spending plans.

setmefree2

ukcarper wrote: »

Possibly true but to keep going on about it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect, the Torys might do better if they pushed more on what they would do and had at least given a ball park figure of the caps for winter fuel payment and social care costs.

I agree.

We need more of the sunny uplands stuff...

also agree about figures for social care costs and winter fuel ..

I reiterate though - the sky won't fall in if the LP wins (best case scenario)....at least in the short run...they will just spend a load of money we don't have...

...I do wonder if JC has painted himself into a dreadful corner claiming taxes will not go up for 95% of people - no wriggle room there when his sums don't add up.

setmefree2

ukcarper wrote: »

No where near. People apposed to nuclear weapons are very vocal look at demonstrations but people in favour are much less vocal, I've never seen a March calling for nuclear weapons.

I meant 100% of the audience cheered the scrapping trident stuff - whereas only 20% of the general population would support such as position - so the BBC audience was clearly biased.

It was Cambridge though - could you get any more Liberal elite ?

Moby

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/31/theresa-may-clear-unfathomable-finds-deflated-newshound The Herald: “Two visits in six weeks to one of the country’s most marginal constituencies – is she getting worried?” May: “I’m very clear that this is a crucial election for this country.” TH: “Plymouth is feeling the effects of military cuts. Will she guarantee to protect the city from further pain?” M: “I’m very clear that Plymouth has a proud record of connection with the armed forces.” TH: “How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth better off?” M: “I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK.” TH: “Will you promise to sort out our transport links?” M: “I’m very clear that connectivity is hugely important for Plymouth and the south-west generally.”

Filo25

setmefree2 wrote: »

I agree.

We need more of the sunny uplands stuff...

also agree about figures for social care costs and winter fuel ..

I reiterate though - the sky won't fall in if the LP wins (best case scenario)....at least in the short run...they will just spend a load of money we don't have...

...I do wonder if JC has painted himself into a dreadful corner claiming taxes will not go up for 95% of people - no wriggle room there when his sums don't add up.

There is practically no chance that Labour can win this election, a hung parliament is as good as they could hope for, whether that would have any moderating effect on their manifesto is open to debate though given the likely parties they would need to get the support of.

Fella

ukcarper wrote: »

Possibly true but to keep going on about it doesn't seem to be having the desired effect, the Torys might do better if they pushed more on what they would do and had at least given a ball park figure of the caps for winter fuel payment and social care costs.

The strange part is the Labour campaign has been awful. Their manifesto would be ruinously expensive if they even managed to deliver a portion of it, which is about as much as would likely prove possible. They chose to make political capital out of the Manchester atrocity. We've had endless car-crash interviews from virtually every person they've put in front of a microphone, as each in turn has demonstrated that they can't do even basic sums, think on their feet, or sound even remotely convincing.

Yet somehow the Tories have managed to run a campaign that's even less appealing to the public. And their campaign is being run by the usually sure-footed Lynton Crosby.

Perhaps we're witnessing Aboyne:

http://tmoliff.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/aboyne-vb.html