the snap general election thread

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This.

We can all accept that Brexit will happen.

But there was never a popular mandate for Theresa May's extreme, uncompromising, hard Brexit.

As last night has definitively proven.

And yet no one stops to ask why a remainer like May was promoting a hard Brexit.

Could it be that was the only policy ahe thought she could get through parliament with a small Tory majority?

Thus paradoxically with a minority govt she may be in a stronger position to go for the brexit lite she would probably personally prefer because the party can no longer be held to ransom by the strong brexiteers as if they don't back brexit light then there will be another election and most likely no brexit at all.

(Normally I fall into the politicians are brighter than we give them credit for and that if someone gets a result which suits them they have probably engineed it; on this occasion despite the suicide note Tory manifesto I don't think May was trying to engineer this but she may not be as upset about the result as some think)

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Moby wrote: »

I remember in 2015 the tory scare tactics, (that worked) of Miliband being in the pocket of the SNP.....what are the tories going to offer the DUP!

Yep - tactic is the word. All politicians will do most things for a cheap point or to stay in or secure their power base.
While many disagree - I reckon the kind of brakes that the Lib Dems applied to some of the previous Conservative aims was a good things as was raining the personal allowance.

So DUP would be able to work with the conservatives to agree or influence in a way other might desire across a mixed bag of issues:-
- they want a positive brexit
- they won't get their way on same sex marriage, but
- on Winter Fuel Allowance they might force it to stay as is
- they will support end to EU COJ jurisdiction
- would be good local input to establish how the "frictionless" NI border might work best
- support low Corp tax
- increase Nat Living wage
Not everything - but some synergies and some restrictions on what may be seen as the worst of the Conservatives.

michaels

In other news I hope the wipeout of the Greens was because of the squeeze from the big two and Corbyn stealing some of the most 'progressive' policies rather than us having turned our backs on the environment as the US has done.

Rinoa

Arklight wrote: »

People aren't switching to Labour because they think they've sniffed a handout. They are switching because they are sick of morally bankrupt free market politics of despair.

433,000 18-24 year old didn't register to vote at the last minute because they wanted a handout. They registered because they felt Labour were offering something the Tories seem to have forgotten even exists, hope.

How do you explain why many poorer areas, where university education is not the norm, still voted conservative, whereas many prosperous areas, usually Conservative, turned to Labour.

And why only in this election, where one party was giving away £50k+ to everyone going to university, did all the young folk suddenly decide voting is now cool.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Arklight wrote: »

I
433,000 18-24 year old didn't register to vote at the last minute because they wanted a handout. They registered because they felt Labour were offering something the Tories seem to have forgotten even exists, hope.

I am not sure either of you can claim to know why or at least have no proof.

But, to argue that no one young chose Labour aside tuition fees is as crass as to suggest if you had a choice between 40k of debt or none you would pick 40k of debt!

I suspect the young are capable of more than this limited thinking.

setmefree2

michaels wrote: »

The curious thing is although the Tories 'lost' they probably ended up with exactly the number votes they would have expected at the start of the campaign.

It is the Labour vote that was much higher than the tories or anyone else anticipated when the election was called. So the misjudgement was not on the vote for the tories but on labour in general and corbyn in particular appearing electable. And where the news has been over the last 12 months means that very few, including most mainstream labour supporters, would have forecast that.

Both parties got very high percentages 43% and 40% which would have been a win in most elections for decades.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

setmefree2 wrote: »

Both parties got very high percentages 43% and 40% which would have been a win in most elections for decades.

And yet I cannot remember ever feeling so few of the swing voters really wanted to vote for who they did?

Or they just didn't want the "other lot" so voted "tactically" for reasons that are invisible to us as a pure vote counted.

setmefree2

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Not sure why anyone is celebrating. Nobody won, and the country quite definitely lost big time.

Has Britain ever been so polarised? There is hardly any centre ground (where elections are supposed to be won and lost) anymore. How can a PM unite such extremes?

I am actually happy.

No high Lab taxes.

No Lab nationalization.

No Lab overspending big time.

No tory grammar schools.

No Tory fox hunting.

No stupid tory social care plans.

I am pleased.

Whenever we have the next election, hopefully there will be a better choice of policies.

Zero_Gravitas

I don't know if this is possible, but surely the most sensible thing to do now would be to "uninvoke" article 50 until the dust settles and there is some idea of exactly who has a mandate to negotiate with the EU...

chucknorris

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

I don't know if this is possible, but surely the most sensible thing to do now would be to "uninvoke" article 50 until the dust settles and there is some idea of exactly who has a mandate to negotiate with the EU...

They said that it was possible a few hours ago on BBC.