General Election, June 8th

[Izzy]

Now the General Election is over, when does this thread go back to being the old Politics thread again? 

 

P.S. All this talk recent of Northern Ireland, time for someone on my wavelength 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

He was on the channel 4 election special advocating a Norway style agreement partly because he knows how difficult it will be to get any sort of deal out of the EU. I would go for it right now to buy some time to get our own house in order. We are in no position to negotiate Brexit.

This will be the last negotiation, no one has any doubt about that, the EU needs clarity on this as much as us, can't be something that is parked.

 

You might be right though, we might be that desperate it will be what we end up with, which in reality meant we may as well have just stayed in. Then it's time for big Nige to re-enter the scene. (Although if Labour are on the verge of being elected it will have to be a hard Brexit, they can't implement their policy unless we are completely outside of the competition and state aid laws)

 

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

We'll leave with a deal and it will be the worst deal ever if this government happens. 

I agree, we'll either crash out or get something shit, if you think you are annoyed now wait until people like me start blaming the electorate for that happening (which I fully intend to).

[theessexfox]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

This will be the last negotiation, no one has any doubt about that, the EU needs clarity on this as much as us, can't be something that is parked.

 

You might be right though, we might be that desperate it will be what we end up with, which in reality meant we may as well have just stayed in. Then it's time for big Nige to re-enter the scene. (Although if Labour are on the verge of being elected it will have to be a hard Brexit, they can't implement their policy unless we are completely outside of the competition and state aid laws)

 

I agree, we'll either crash out or get something shit, if you think you are annoyed now wait until people like me start blaming the electorate for that happening (which I fully intend to).

Out of interest, which parts of the Labour manifesto would not comply with competition and state aid laws?

[Ashley]

Heard someone say at work earlier. There can't be a coalition government with dup because it breaks the good Friday agreement?

 

Is this true?

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, Ashley said:

Heard someone say at work earlier. There can't be a coalition government with dup because it breaks the good Friday agreement?

 

Is this true?

It's not true, only Sinn Fein are claiming that, however as part of the agreement the government have to be impartial on NI matters and obviously when the DUP are the government, impartiality is going to be hard.

[The Guvnor]

1 minute ago, Ashley said:

Heard someone say at work earlier. There can't be a coalition government with dup because it breaks the good Friday agreement?

 

Is this true?

It's not a coalition, it's a confidence and supply arrangement

[Realist Guy In The Room]

24 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

It's not a coalition, it's a confidence and supply arrangement

Sinn Fein wont give a shit about the terminology.

 

Any whiff of anything even remotely bias and they'll kick off.

 

 

[The Doctor]

36 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

It's not a coalition, it's a confidence and supply arrangement

It's a coalition in all but name, and Sinn Fein won't be fooled by it - as with Matt the other day, weak semantics won't dismiss what everyone sees. They'll be bitching to high heaven if the tories are seen to be working with the DUP.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Love the fact that the Post Election Poll, elsewhere in this forum, is basically saying, "yes there should be another election; no I wouldn't change my vote."

 

[Rincewind]

8 hours 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.

Sock drawer?

[Buce]

9 hours ago, Great Boos Up said:

As implied by @davieG poll (who asked  what we think but are unable to reply on FT) Post election Poll. No one will ever change their mind so at this point a perpetual dead heat is a certainty. like the brexit 49/51, the country is split.

 

That's palpably untrue, otherwise why have elections at all? We have seen people vote differently in the last two elections, and we even have a prominent Tory on here proposing to vote Labour in any re-run.

[Nick]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

 

 

I agree, we'll either crash out or get something shit, if you think you are annoyed now wait until people like me start blaming the electorate for that happening (which I fully intend to).

You are prepared to blame the electorate rather than the Tory government? 

 

Thats way ridiculous!

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

That's palpably untrue, otherwise why have elections at all? We have seen people vote differently in the last two elections, and we even have a prominent Tory on here proposing to vote Labour in any re-run.

 

True. Plus, even a few seats changing hands could make a big difference to the outcome. If the Tories gained 10 seats, they'd have an overall majority. If Labour gained 10 seats, they'd have the numbers to form a government supported by the other centre-left or nationalist parties (LD, SNP, Plaid, Green) - and there are dozens of seats that now have a majority in 3-figures or less.

 

There were 2 elections within a year in 1974. The first one yielded a hung parliament, the second one produced a small Labour majority.

 

Plus, it's not as if the next 6-9 months will be uneventful: the Brexit talks may go brilliantly or disastrously; the economy may or may not slide further downhill; the Tory/DUP alliance may be seen as a great success or as harmful or an utter fiasco....

[Guest]

10 hours ago, theessexfox said:

Out of interest, which parts of the Labour manifesto would not comply with competition and state aid laws?

He's talking bollocks, predictably.

I presume he's talking about nationalisation which is clearly allowed within the eu as we see it across much of Europe. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, MattP said:

 

I agree, we'll either crash out or get something shit, if you think you are annoyed now wait until people like me start blaming the electorate for that happening (which I fully intend to).

No, sorry. The hard right which wants the hsrdest form of brexit is to blame. They pushed the referendum result and, with tory support, tried to come out of the election with a mandate for may's version of 'no deal is better than a bad deal brexit'. Brexit was a bad idea from the start and of we get a bad deal the blame will lie squarely with leave voters and tories. 

[Lionator]

There was a guy on QT last week who tried to blame the electorate for not giving the Tory's a majority causing the current chaos. Understandably he got booed.

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, theessexfox said:

Out of interest, which parts of the Labour manifesto would not comply with competition and state aid laws?

Kate Hoey has done an article here that explains better than me why she believes it wouldn't be possible to nationalise the railways, effectively she states that the rules mean different companies are entitled to use the same lines and this is why Deutsch Barn are now starting to face competition  - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/renationalise-railways-what-no-one-will-tell-you-we-cant-while-were-eu

 

This is disputed, but full fact does a pretty good write up and the verdict is that it would as least have an impact.

 

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Quote

 

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise

 

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market_en

 

 

I'm not sure it was in the manifesto, but I'm sure Corbyn and McDonnell stated at the time they wanted to nationalise British Steel again or prop it up through state money, here is why they couldn't - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/save-british-steel-state-aid-renationalisation-eu

 

A column here on Corbyn telling the government to "tear up" state aid rules, which seems to suggest he realises the impact of it - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/jeremy-corbyn-urges-government-to-tear-up-eu-state-aid-rules-1.2792878

 

10 hours ago, The Doctor said:

It's a coalition in all but name, and Sinn Fein won't be fooled by it - as with Matt the other day, weak semantics won't dismiss what everyone sees. They'll be bitching to high heaven if the tories are seen to be working with the DUP.

It's not at all, it's a confidence and supply agreement, very, very different to the coalition which saw the other party take very senior posts in office.

 

The DUP will not be in the government and Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds will not have government positions or be regular attendees of cabinet meetings, stop trying to make it out to be something it isnt.

 

49 minutes ago, toddybad said:

No, sorry. The hard right which wants the hsrdest form of brexit is to blame. They pushed the referendum result and, with tory support, tried to come out of the election with a mandate for may's version of 'no deal is better than a bad deal brexit'. Brexit was a bad idea from the start and of we get a bad deal the blame will lie squarely with leave voters and tories. 

Given the Labour party official position you won't be in a place to blame anyone else given you are also ones who are supporting pretty much the exactly policy that the Conservatives are taking to Brussels, for all we know May was trying to get a larger majority to soften Brexit (a theory spoke about by a few of the commentariat and on here) so she wouldn't be at the mercy of the 50-60 hardliners on her backbenchers.

 

On the subject of the Conservatve-DUP agreement I get the feeling there is some wishful thinking from people when they talk about it collapsing, that doesn't really stand up to any serious thought or scrutiny, the DUP will be absolutely desperate to make this work for a long as they can, they will and would pretty much do anything to avoid someone like Jeremy Corbyn being Prime Minister, they genuinely despise him and his politics, the Tories would have to really do something outrageous for them to to withdraw their support and give that a serious chance of happening. If he resigns as Labour leader it could fall apart at any minute, don't expect it too while he's the alternative though.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

True. Plus, even a few seats changing hands could make a big difference to the outcome. If the Tories gained 10 seats, they'd have an overall majority. If Labour gained 10 seats, they'd have the numbers to form a government supported by the other centre-left or nationalist parties (LD, SNP, Plaid, Green) - and there are dozens of seats that now have a majority in 3-figures or less.

 

There were 2 elections within a year in 1974. The first one yielded a hung parliament, the second one produced a small Labour majority.

 

Plus, it's not as if the next 6-9 months will be uneventful: the Brexit talks may go brilliantly or disastrously; the economy may or may not slide further downhill; the Tory/DUP alliance may be seen as a great success or as harmful or an utter fiasco....

Given we now have ten seats within 100 it's highly likely we could get a different result.

 

If the Tories were going to call an election immediately the best time would be late July as all the students will have gone home. I find it pretty outrageous really they can all come out en masse to turn a traditionally Conservative area like Canterbury blue (or Sheffield Hallam red) and then just waltz off in a couple of months/years and leave the population there to deal with the consequences.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

You are prepared to blame the electorate rather than the Tory government? 

 

Thats way ridiculous!

I was being slightly humorous, but many will, this has given the governent an excuse, whether people will buy it or not I don't know, but it's something they'll cling onto if it does go wrong.

 

They'll either blame the vote for not giving them a strong enough hand if it's a bad deal, or they'll try and get away with a soft Brexit to their own voters by blaming the DUP and saying the election made it impossible for them to deliver Hard Brexit.

[Nick]

They're not fit for purpose and should stand down. They do not represent the UK's best interests and they know it. 

 

This government are all all about power and control and the group as a collective should go run a ruthless business - they'll clean up.

 

However they are not fit as a collective to look after people.

[Alf Bentley]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Given we now have ten seats within 100 it's highly likely we could get a different result.

 

If the Tories were going to call an election immediately the best time would be late July as all the students will have gone home. I find it pretty outrageous really they can all come out en masse to turn a traditionally Conservative area like Canterbury blue (or Sheffield Hallam red) and then just waltz off in a couple of months/years and leave the population there to deal with the consequences.

 

 

It would certainly be a cynical move to call an election during the summer vacation - but  parties of every hue have occasionally been known to display cynicism.  

I wonder whether it would work, though? The Tories would doubtless gain a handful of seats in university towns, but student votes might tip a few marginals for Labour back in their home towns....plus Tory voters tend to be wealthier and more likely to be abroad on summer holidays....

Can't see it happening, anyway, unless the Brexit negotiations are postponed until the autumn (unlikely). After May's apparently good reception at the 1922 Committee, it sounds as if the Tory/DUP alliance will happen....for how long is another matter.

 

Outrageous that people vote where they're living?! Outrageous that people move around the country?! I thought Tories liked that sort of thing - Labour flexibility, Tebbit's "on your bike to look for work" speech etc?

 

Occurs to me that, until recently, I've nearly always moved soon after a general election:

- 1983: Voted in Norwich, was in France/Folkestone by 1984

- 1987: Voted in Lewisham, was in Greenwich by 1988

- 1992: Voted in Plymouth, was in Salford within months

- 1997: Voted in Hinckley, was in Cov within months

- 2001: Voted in Cov, was in Oadby within months

- 2005: Voted in Oadby (Harborough), was in Leicester by 2006

Only since 2010, have I stayed put where I voted (Leicester).......... Didn't you get the message about it being essential for capital to have mobile, flexible labour markets to exploit?! 

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

They're not fit for purpose and should stand down. They do not represent the UK's best interests and they know it. 

 

This government are all all about power and control and the group as a collective should go run a ruthless business - they'll clean up.

 

However they are not fit as a collective to look after people.

What? They have just won 50 more seats and more votes than any other party, why would they stand down when the public have decided it should be them that governs just last week?

 

And if they did who would they hand over to? No one else can form a government. If you say "another election" - what then happens if parties you don't like again win 326 seats or more?

 

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

It would certainly be a cynical move to call an election during the summer vacation - but  parties of every hue have occasionally been known to display cynicism.  

I wonder whether it would work, though? The Tories would doubtless gain a handful of seats in university towns, but student votes might tip a few marginals for Labour back in their home towns....plus Tory voters tend to be wealthier and more likely to be abroad on summer holidays....

Can't see it happening, anyway, unless the Brexit negotiations are postponed until the autumn (unlikely). After May's apparently good reception at the 1922 Committee, it sounds as if the Tory/DUP alliance will happen....for how long is another matter.

 

Outrageous that people vote where they're living?! Outrageous that people move around the country?! I thought Tories liked that sort of thing - Labour flexibility, Tebbit's "on your bike to look for work" speech etc?

 

Occurs to me that, until recently, I've nearly always moved soon after a general election:

- 1983: Voted in Norwich, was in France/Folkestone by 1984

- 1987: Voted in Lewisham, was in Greenwich by 1988

- 1992: Voted in Plymouth, was in Salford within months

- 1997: Voted in Hinckley, was in Cov within months

- 2001: Voted in Cov, was in Oadby within months

- 2005: Voted in Oadby (Harborough), was in Leicester by 2006

Only since 2010, have I stayed put where I voted (Leicester).......... Didn't you get the message about it being essential for capital to have mobile, flexible labour markets to exploit?! 

That's quite an outrageous list of moves, if I didn't know you better I'd assume you were very dodgy

 

Out of interest what do you think it would take for the DUP to drop their support and give Corbyn a chance of being the Prime Minister? I'm struggling to think of much, they despise him so much I think the Conservatives are actually in a fairly strong place with this agreement, far stronger than they were in the Lib Dem coalition. I think he DUP realise they can have real influence, get a lot of money and keep JC from being PM for as long as possible here, it would take a lot for them to jeopardise that imo.

 

(apologies if I don't reply, time to do some work today, I've got to catch up from too much posting on here yesterday)

[Captain...]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

11 hours ago, theessexfox said:

 

Kate Hoey has done an article here that explains better than me why she believes it wouldn't be possible to nationalise the railways, effectively she states that the rules mean different companies are entitled to use the same lines and this is why Deutsch Barn are now starting to face competition  - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/renationalise-railways-what-no-one-will-tell-you-we-cant-while-were-eu

 

This is disputed, but full fact does a pretty good write up and the verdict is that it would as least have an impact.

 

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Quote

 

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise

 

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market_en

 

 

I'm not sure it was in the manifesto, but I'm sure Corbyn and McDonnell stated at the time they wanted to nationalise British Steel again or prop it up through state money, here is why they couldn't - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/save-british-steel-state-aid-renationalisation-eu

 

A column here on Corbyn telling the government to "tear up" state aid rules, which seems to suggest he realises the impact of it - http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/jeremy-corbyn-urges-government-to-tear-up-eu-state-aid-rules-1.2792878

I assume that wouldn't be the case under a "soft brexit/Norway" deal.

[Guest Kopfkino]

20 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I assume that wouldn't be the case under a "soft brexit/Norway" deal.

 

I'm pretty sure state aid and competition rules would still apply. It all stems from Article 107 of TFEU which is all about protecting competition within the internal market and I don't see why EEA countries would be exempt from that.

[The Guvnor]

12 hours ago, toddybad said:

That's a strange argument. The eu protects the eu. Britain protects britain. Britain will be committing national suicide if it leaves badly and it will be entirely our own fault.

 

We voted out - well 52% of you did. We are leaving based on that democratic vote but it should be remembered that if only 3% of people voting in the referendum wanted to leave under what we now call 'soft' terms then a majority of the country are effectively soft brexiteers (as all remainers would fall under that cetegory now you'd imagine). There is no mandate for a hard brexit as that question has never been asked. I suspect if it was the soft option would win as people are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg in terms of the difficulties that are ahead.

Interesting point and looks like that was correct, in other words always sticking to their principals rules and regulations regardless of the consequences, so basically never any chance of the concessions and more importantly reforms we wanted.

David Cameron and the leave campaigners were crystal clear on what leaving the EU would mean regarding leaving the single market, customs union and repealing EU law that was the mandate.

Now earlier I said I believed it was arrogance on the part of the EU not to rubber stamp David Camerons  minor concessions which may have prevented a leave vote who knows? Well maybe it wasn't arrogance how about complete fcuking indifference whether we stayed in or not, let's face it we were always a reluctant bride, we didn't subscribe to the Euro, Mrs Thatcher may have only received half of the rebate she asked for 1984 but nevertheless it was a 'special concession' for Britain which has saved our treasury Billions . Maybe like I have said there was total indifference that we left, they have finally got rid of the disruptive child in the classroom.

If that is the case there is absolutely no chance of any party getting anything out of these negotiations other than an extremely painful kick in the groin and pocket that will cost a fortune what would you call that a 'Hard' or 'Soft' Brexit ?