General Election, June 8th

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm going for the "this is the election result and unfortunately the only option" argument.

 

As I say, give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.

 

Being cynical, if I were a Tory I'd give Corbyn a chance to form a minority government. Given the numbers, there's a fair chance he'd either fail to form a government or that govt would be short-lived and would collapse, bringing him some of the blame when another general election became inevitable. If he somehow sustained a government for longer, he'd be doing so during economic and political times that are about to get almost impossibly difficult with growing economic problems and the Brexit negotiations. This could well be a very good time to be out of government!

 

Being cynical again, as a Labourite I'd be quite happy to see May struggle on for 6-9 months. The DUP are unlikely to prop them up forever. Economic times are likely to get tough, Brexit negotiations are likely to prove intractable. Under that scenario, the DUP might well want out of the responsibility sooner rather than later - and an election in 6-9 months could well produce a Labour majority with the Tories rightly having got the blame for all the mess they've created through austerity, Brexit and an unnecessary election. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Being cynical, if I were a Tory I'd give Corbyn a chance to form a minority government. Given the numbers, there's a fair chance he'd either fail to form a government or that govt would be short-lived and would collapse, bringing him some of the blame when another general election became inevitable. If he somehow sustained a government for longer, he'd be doing so during economic and political times that are about to get almost impossibly difficult with growing economic problems and the Brexit negotiations. This could well be a very good time to be out of government!

 

Being cynical again, as a Labourite I'd be quite happy to see May struggle on for 6-9 months. The DUP are unlikely to prop them up forever. Economic times are likely to get tough, Brexit negotiations are likely to prove intractable. Under that scenario, the DUP might well want out of the responsibility sooner rather than later - and an election in 6-9 months could well produce a Labour majority with the Tories rightly having got the blame for all the mess they've created through austerity, Brexit and an unnecessary election. 

I prefer the second option.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Who is this kid?

 

I saw him on Sky News yesterday morning 'giving it the big un'

 

I find him extremely annoying in a David Brent kind of way. 

 

 

 

Owen Jones. Quite a prominent lefty political commentator (and he's not as young as he looks).

 

I can understand you finding him annoying. Try to ignore him and concentrate on the content (though I've not got the time to watch this half-hour video).

He used to be a bit immature in his analysis, but has matured quite well - writes some good stuff sometimes, annoying or not.

[deep blue]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm going for the "this is the election result and unfortunately the only option" argument.

 

As I say, give me a realistic alternative and I'm all ears.

Over the last year MPs have been acting against their majority view which is to stay in the EU.  They have done it largely out of self-interest and fear of incurring temporary unpopularity.

 

As a result, they have presided over a slide into chaos, and worse is to come (just look at the panic in many of our major business sectors already).

 

Our politicians must man up, take responsibility, and do what they know is in the best interest of this country - stop all this Brexit nonsense and ask to take back the invocation of article 50. That will remove most of the business uncertainty and the awful economic prospect immediately.

 

Of course, we are still left with the current political chaos caused by May. I see no practical alternative but another election, painful though that may be. At least it would be held without the unnecessary distraction of Brexit and voters would be able to concentrate on the issues that matter to them.

[Mike Oxlong]

That odious turd Gove getting back into the cabinet beggars belief. 

 

Scraping the bottom of a very shitty barrel. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I guess the alternative would be to run with a minority government. It may not help the tories but would potentially be good if the parties decided to recognise that during brexit negotiations the public would expect them to work together and find policies that require all to find a middle ground for the sake of the country. That's what grown ups would do. Admittedly i have no idea if any such agreement could be formed between the parties.perhaps an agreement to work together on brexit for 2 years then hold a new election?

They are running a minority government, that's what it is, it's not a coalition.

 

Again, there is no need to find a middle ground for Brexit, just short of 85% of people last week voted for parties who have effectively committed to take us out of the single market, Labour and the Tories appear to want the same things, the opposition needs to come when they fight the Great Repeal Bill - what we enshrine into UK law from the Human Rights act.

 

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Being cynical, if I were a Tory I'd give Corbyn a chance to form a minority government. Given the numbers, there's a fair chance he'd either fail to form a government or that govt would be short-lived and would collapse, bringing him some of the blame when another general election became inevitable. If he somehow sustained a government for longer, he'd be doing so during economic and political times that are about to get almost impossibly difficult with growing economic problems and the Brexit negotiations. This could well be a very good time to be out of government!

 

Being cynical again, as a Labourite I'd be quite happy to see May struggle on for 6-9 months. The DUP are unlikely to prop them up forever. Economic times are likely to get tough, Brexit negotiations are likely to prove intractable. Under that scenario, the DUP might well want out of the responsibility sooner rather than later - and an election in 6-9 months could well produce a Labour majority with the Tories rightly having got the blame for all the mess they've created through austerity, Brexit and an unnecessary election. 

What would be the point of giving him that chance? He would just produce a Queen's speech, it would fail to pass and then we would have another election - the absolute last thing the Conservative party wants at the minute - you don't call elections while the opposition and their supporters have a spring in their step.

 

Corbyn is woeful at providing an opposition but extremely good at campainig, it's time now for at least a couple of years to force him back into the place where he is the least comfortable, the House of Commons.

 

Maybe I'm being cynical here but maybe the Tory plan is to get Brexit through, watch over the economic downturn, see the tax receipts drop hugely and then fight an election against a Jeremy Corbyn who will have to produce a far different manifesto from the one he just fought on given it will be one where if he wants to splurge on tuition fees etc he'll have to tax far more people than he wants.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, deep blue said:

Our politicians must man up, take responsibility, and do what they know is in the best interest of this country - stop all this Brexit nonsense and ask to take back the invocation of article 50. That will remove most of the business uncertainty and the awful economic prospect immediately.

Both parties who took 43% and 40% of the vote in the election last week stood on a promise of not only delivering Brexit, but doing so by leaving the single market. (Assuming the EU aren't lying when they say the four freedoms would be sacrified to stay being a member)

[LiberalFox]

4 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

Yeah but Clegg was treated appallingly by the government and the press.

 

Labour would work with the SNP anyway I would think?

 

This government I'm sure will get through but some of the appointments are really awful - Gove's been given a job he shouldn't be anywhere near to keep him quiet at best.

 

On an aside I think Caroline Lucas is way and by far the truest Leader of people (policies aside) she is a truly inspiring individual - If I were her I'd defect to the liberals and lead them and I genuinely believe people would follow...

 

I can't imagine Caroline Lucas would be well received by the right of the party and I'm not sure how liberal the Greens are these days. Maybe more liberal now the socialist mob have gone over to Labour. It is mandatory to have a leadership contest in the Lib Dems within 1 year of a GE. It's either Farron Cable or Swinson with the outside possibility of Lamb. I suspect we will either stick with Tim or give it to Vince.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I did think about that link myself. Him and Pruitt are almost two peas in a pod.

 

Anyone think that this appointment is a good idea? @Webbo? @MattP? @Dirkster the Fox? @Strokes? Anyone?

I'm extremely happy with his return. Very bright guy, pisses off the right people too.

[Kopfkino]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Maybe I'm being cynical here but maybe the Tory plan is to get Brexit through, watch over the economic downturn, see the tax receipts drop hugely and then fight an election against a Jeremy Corbyn who will have to produce a far different manifesto from the one he just fought on given it will be one where if he wants to splurge on tuition fees etc he'll have to tax far more people than he wants.

 

With favourable boundary changes if they still go through

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

With favourable boundary changes if they still go through

Cheers, something I had totally forgotten about.

 

That has to go through as well of course before any election is called.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm extremely happy with his return. Very bright guy, pisses off the right people too.

Fair enough...I'll repeat the remark I made to Matt to you also then...an environ sec who is also a climate change dismisser sits well with you? Surely there are better places for him in the cabinet.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough...I'll repeat the remark I made to Matt to you also then...an environ sec who is also a climate change dismisser suit sits well with you? Surely there are better places for him in the cabinet.

It doesn't bother me, I'm sceptical myself, as you know. We won't be doing anything controversial for the length of this parliament so I wouldn't worry if I were you. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Webbo said:

It doesn't bother me, I'm sceptical myself, as you know. We won't be doing anything controversial for the length of this parliament so I wouldn't worry if I were you. 

Skepticism at a personal level on that matter, though I might roll my eyes, is fine.

 

Skepticism from the minister in charge of policy for that particular matter (despite the reassurances offered that the policy won't change)...isn't really fine IMO.

 

Even if he doesn't affect UK environmental policy in a meaningful way (like Pruitt is doing here with his axe to the EPA over here, for instance), it still sends a pretty bad message.

[deep blue]

49 minutes ago, MattP said:

Both parties who took 43% and 40% of the vote in the election last week stood on a promise of not only delivering Brexit, but doing so by leaving the single market. (Assuming the EU aren't lying when they say the four freedoms would be sacrified to stay being a member)

I'm sure you're well aware that the majority of MPs support Remain. The most important thing now is what is best for the country and that is what all our politicians should be focussing on.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough...I'll repeat the remark I made to Matt to you also then...an environ sec who is also a climate change dismisser sits well with you? Surely there are better places for him in the cabinet.

He's a climate change sceptic, as are many. Not a denier.

 

We shouldn't live in a country where everyone has to hold what you consider the right opinion to hold office in whatever segment you see fit.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, deep blue said:

I'm sure you're well aware that the majority of MPs support Remain. The most important thing now is what is best for the country and that is what all our politicians should be focussing on.

They did.

 

Now the vast majority of them don't having stood on last week's manifestos.

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Skepticism at a personal level on that matter, though I might roll my eyes, is fine.

 

Skepticism from the minister in charge of policy for that particular matter (despite the reassurances offered that the policy won't change)...isn't really fine IMO.

 

Even if he doesn't affect UK environmental policy in a meaningful way (like Pruitt is doing here with his axe to the EPA over here, for instance), it still sends a pretty bad message.

I'm a sceptic, I believe the climate is changing, like it always has. I'm just not sure as much of it is down to mans influence as is claimed. However i still think things like renewable energy and such are a no brainer because we can't rely on dwindling fossil fuels and on a volatile oil market forever.

[Captain...]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Both parties who took 43% and 40% of the vote in the election last week stood on a promise of not only delivering Brexit, but doing so by leaving the single market. (Assuming the EU aren't lying when they say the four freedoms would be sacrified to stay being a member)

That's not what Corbyn said in the debates or the Shadow Brexit Secretary, they said they wanted to remain in the single market and believed it was possible. They also implied they would end free movement, but Corbyn was very clear not to say that he would accept free movement for access to the single market.

 

Quote

Labour would seek to end free movement but not shut the door on the single market, the customs union or participation in EU agencies, Starmer added.

“We recognise that immigration rules will have to change as we exit the EU, but we do not believe that immigration should be the overarching priority,” he said.

Quote

At the heart of Labour’s proposals on Brexit for its manifesto, the party has said it would scrap the Brexit white paper and replace it with new negotiating priorities with the emphasis on keeping the benefits of the single market and customs union.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/24/labour-vows-to-rip-up-and-rethink-brexit-white-paper

 

Quote

JM: I don’t think it’s feasible but we’ve been clear all the way along. Ours is a ‘jobs first Brexit’, everything we can do to protect our economy. That must mean tariff-free access to the single market, that’s going to be our…

RP: So you would, just to be clear on this because I think this is very important to people, you would support the prime minister, if Theresa May remains prime minister during these talks, you would support her in her determination to get us out of the European single market.

JM: Let’s be clear: we are respecting the decision of the referendum. We are democrats…

RP: Yes, but the decision was about leaving the EU, it wasn’t about leaving the single market.

JM: I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum. However, what we’re saying very, very clearly; we had the contrast in this general election. Here we had the Conservative Party going for a ‘race to the bottom Brexit’ and undermining our economy. We always said it would be a ‘jobs first Brexit’…

RP: No, I understand that but it is clear… I think that you are absolutely saying that Labour remains wedded to the idea of leaving the single market.

JM: It’s access. Access to the single market on a tariff-free basis.

I'm not sure how the spectator got this headline from that exchange: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/full-transcript-john-mcdonnell-says-labour-supports-leaving-single-market/#

 

The way I interpreted it was that they would be happy with a Norway style deal, but made sure they didn't actually say it. They did say the wanted tariff free access to the single market, but accepted Brexit. The only way that is possible is to make a Norway style deal, or get the EU to compromise on their key beliefs.

 

That may just be me looking for things that aren't there because I see that as being the logical option at the moment. We have a mess in the commons, we have a government that called an election to give them a stronger mandate on Brexit and have massively weakened their position. At they moment they are still struggling to make a deal on the running of this country I have zero faith in them negotiating any sort of beneficial Brexit. Taking a Norway type deal would be a half way house honouring the results of Brexit whilst giving us access to the single market and the migrant labour force we need for growth. We would honour any existing financial commitments so there would be no divorce settlements, then after 5 years or 10 or 7, after some years we have another referendum to decide whether we stay with the Norway deal, rejoin the EU or sever all ties.

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

He's a climate change sceptic, as are many. Not a denier.

 

We shouldn't live in a country where everyone has to hold what you consider the right opinion to hold office in whatever segment you see fit.

 

 

He is sceptical of the effects of climate change which means he dismisses mounds of legitimate scientific evidence to the contrary - in this case the line between skeptic and dismisser (as opposed to 'denier' - I'm not sure many people truly deny the effects rather than simply dismiss them, though that's semantics s the overall result is the same) is a little blurry, perhaps?

 

Of course, he's free to be raised to whatever office his party and PM see fit, but as an Environment Sec and Department is supposed to shape policy to care for and protect the environment, having a leader who dismisses one of the clear and present potential causes of environmental damage is a little bit of a strange choice.

 

19 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I'm a sceptic, I believe the climate is changing, like it always has. I'm just not sure as much of it is down to mans influence as is claimed. However i still think things like renewable energy and such are a no brainer because we can't rely on dwindling fossil fuels and on a volatile oil market forever.

 

I believe you're right about the climate always changing and I also believe that the question regarding the culpability of man in the whole thing is an irrelevant and costly manufactured distraction to maintain the status quo.

 

You may be an exception to the rule, but it's no secret that most climate change sceptics are also in favour of continued reliance on fossil fuels.

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Both parties who took 43% and 40% of the vote in the election last week stood on a promise of not only delivering Brexit, but doing so by leaving the single market. (Assuming the EU aren't lying when they say the four freedoms would be sacrified to stay being a member)

43%? You sure?  

[theessexfox]

I don't really get the clamour for another general election - we literally just asked the public what they wanted, and this is what the public said. What sort of precedent does another election set? "Sorry, I know we just asked you but you didn't quite get it right so can you try again please? Try and do it a little better this time".

 

As MattP says, there is a decent chance there will be another hung Parliament. Another waste of time and resources and creating deeper divisions and instability. Unfortunately, the only feasible way to carry on is a Tory minority government with the agreement of the DUP, numerically. 

[Captain...]

I've just seen David Davis on the news saying he is open to ideas over Brexit, if anyone has them let him know.

 

This really is farcical, maybe I should get in touch...

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I don't really get the clamour for another general election - we literally just asked the public what they wanted, and this is what the public said. What sort of precedent does another election set? "Sorry, I know we just asked you but you didn't quite get it right so can you try again please? Try and do it a little better this time".

 

As MattP says, there is a decent chance there will be another hung Parliament. Another waste of time and resources and creating deeper divisions and instability. Unfortunately, the only feasible way to carry on is a Tory minority government with the agreement of the DUP, numerically. 

We'd be basically telling them to stop dicking around with the little pointless parties and decide which main party they want. Then we would still probably get a dead heat.

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I don't really get the clamour for another general election - we literally just asked the public what they wanted, and this is what the public said. What sort of precedent does another election set? "Sorry, I know we just asked you but you didn't quite get it right so can you try again please? Try and do it a little better this time".

 

As MattP says, there is a decent chance there will be another hung Parliament. Another waste of time and resources and creating deeper divisions and instability. Unfortunately, the only feasible way to carry on is a Tory minority government with the agreement of the DUP, numerically. 

Because the last one was so much fun, it's not like the government has anything better to do, we don't have any country defining negotiations on the horizon that will shape our future.

 

I look forward to the day we become like Belgium and spend 584 days without an elected Government