General Election 2017

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I think the no tax rise thing was a bit like the Brexit referendum, a manifesto promise when Cameron didn't think they'd win a majority.  It's foolish for anyone not to write in some wriggle room when it comes to raising taxes, as Hammond found out.

Almost certainly ... 

of course the people citing election pledges are the people saying we need to raise taxes to save the NHS but that's another story 

for now self employed people get to practise legal tax avoidance without being called immoral and disgusting ....until the next budget 

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

To expand on that newspaper clipping a page back, May is holding an election she repeatedly pledged not to hold, to perform an act she voted against, whilst claiming the country is United, but parliament isn't. And in doing so is supported by the Labour opposition.

And that leaves a choice between an abhorrent, untrustworthy, hollow, control freak or a monumentally incompetent flakey dreamer who actually helps the tories through his dim-witted bumbling ineptitude.

All the damage that the tories are doing and will do is being aided and abetted by the utter clusterplop that is the Corbyn "led" Labour party.

Sorry but this is utter rubbish in my humble opinion.

Stuff like this just helps the Tories. If you're happy doing that then fine.  But if you support the Labour party, or any other outcome than 5 more years of the Tories, then this isn't helping.

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

i kinda get most of that  but didn't we have claims of an unelected PM that was running scared of getting her own mandate ....weren't labour supportiers ( tbf it may have been more remainers clutching at straws )  demanding she call an election soon as she became PM .... now she's doing just that the very same people * are accusing her of lying and  U-turning ... they are right of course but it just seems a weird stick to use when you've been given what you asked for 

i think regardless of the character assassination she has played a blinder politically ( assuming she wins of course ) , fairly sure after this election she won't suffer another potential NI defeat 

 for the control freak part , aren't all leaders to a degree , i'd argue Corbyn  is one as well , you only have to look at the path he's leading labour down to see that .. my way or piss off basically .... anything else and they get seen as weak ?

* I'll qualify this by saying social media wise rather than anyone specifically on this forum 

To answer para by para. That's right, when she got in she said she wouldn't do an election and some people said she hadn't got a mandate. They were right and she was wrong. It's true that by doing what she said she wouldn't do, she is likely to get a (belated) mandate.  As you say she's lying and u-turning. I'm not sure that those are weird things to criticise her for. Nor is it weird to criticise the cynicism and massive hypocrisy, given her repeated assertions of the need for 'stability'.

You might be right on the political blinder thing, but I suspect not. She'll win, probably, but she'll have expended a lot of credibility in doing so. She's also being exposed, I think, as an empty soul. The combination of that hollow person and the inevitable nature of events and chickens coming home to roost will do for her reputation quite quickly, I suspect. The stuff like the NI mess won't go away, because it's inherent - the cause of it was human weaseling.

There's a difference between control freakery and exercising control when needed, IMO. Good leaders give their team freedom to use their capabilities. In football terms Corbyn's lost the dressing room and maybe May is like Mourinho at Chelsea last year.

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Sorry but this is utter rubbish in my humble opinion.

Stuff like this just helps the Tories. If you're happy doing that then fine.  But if you support the Labour party, or any other outcome than 5 more years of the Tories, then this isn't helping.

Unfortunately for your viewpoint there are numerous examples that support my assertion that corbyn's bumbling incompetence and weak mind as leader of the opposition has helped the tories. Most recently just this week. May was a member of the cabinet that brought in the fixed term parliament act. The two ways the fixed term can be shortened were set up to be either what occurred this week, which was a 2/3rds vote for an election meekly supported by labour, (but which if labour had voted against, they could have prevented), or alternatively, a simple majority vote of no confidence motion. Labour and Corbyn had it in their power to say to May and the country "if you want an election, go ahead, table a motion of no confidence in your own government". Article 50, again corbyn whipping his MPs to support the government. These are facts.

Furthermore your reply isn't grounded in reality, is it? Me writing what I did on a football message board does not "help the tories". You'll note that I called May "an abhorrent, untrustworthy, hollow, control freak" which doesn't 'help the tories'.

I do not support the current labour party, as it happens, though I definitely don't want another second of the tories in power. My view of Corbyn on VT is fair game for you to call "rubbish", but saying my post on VT slating May and Corbyn and the electoral system 'helps the tories' is delusional. It's because I'm so desperate not to have tories in power that corbyn's ineptitude is such a problem, as is the system which means whoever I vote for will make not a tiny iota of difference, in this safe seat

[Awol]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Sorry but this is utter rubbish in my humble opinion.

Stuff like this just helps the Tories. If you're happy doing that then fine.  But if you support the Labour party, or any other outcome than 5 more years of the Tories, then this isn't helping.

Mate, this post reeks of desperation - bordering on panic.

[a m ole]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

Mate, this post reeks of desperation - bordering on panic.

It's a desperate situation for the patients whose cancer operations have been delayed or those recovering from illness in corridors, also the disabled people who have had their allowances cut, and the growing number of children in relative poverty.

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, a m ole said:

It's a desperate situation for the patients whose cancer operations have been delayed or those recovering from illness in corridors, also the disabled people who have had their allowances cut, and the growing number of children in relative poverty.

I'm no fan of May and won't be voting Conservative. I just think anyone who believes Jezza 'armed struggle' Corbyn can fix things is flat out delusional. 

[a m ole]

12 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'm no fan of May and won't be voting Conservative. I just think anyone who believes Jezza 'armed struggle' Corbyn can fix things is flat out delusional. 

fair!

[markavfc40]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand why? An increased majority is an increased majority. Plus she's reset the clock by two years. 

You know what mate I think I am potentially talking bollocks. I think they have gone into this expecting a landslide though and I think if they were to say increase their majority by say 20-25 seats they would see it as a bit of a disappointment.

Like you say the extra two years thing is probably the more likely reason they have done it as they know the shit storm that is heading our way and that they could well have been in big trouble in 2020. 

 

[VillaChris]

Is the next election going to be 2022 then?

I just assumed they'd still be another in 2020...sort of a year old verdict on Brexit at that point.

[blandy]

Quote

It’s election time again. Why? Because **** you that’s why. In Britain we must now have a public vote about something we all don’t want to vote on roughly once a year, those are now the rules. The public now have a choice: which idiot is slightly less of an idiot than the other idiots? The Tories have May, the female child catcher whose word is about as strong as a dog’s self control when left alone with a ham.

Labour have Corbyn, which at this point kind of feels like Neil from The Young Ones found himself in a position of political power. The Lib Dems have Tim Farron, a man that looks like he is constantly on the cusp of an unexpected orgasm. The SNP have Sturgeon, probably the only politician that makes you think “I wouldn’t mind going to the pub with her because at least you know you’d have a laugh” and UKIP have the political equivalent of a character you have yet to unlock in a PS2 fighting game.

Of course we also have The Greens, Plaid Cymru, the NHS party, The Women’s Equality Party, The Christian Party, The Communist Party, The Church of Militant Elvis Party, to name but a few, but this is the big four going up against each other, expect 59 days of snide comments, terrible soundbites, relentless news coverage and badly worded rants on Facebook from your mate Barry who you went to school with 23 years ago who thinks the Libertarian party actually stand a chance this time. Don’t forget to register to vote https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote, if you don’t vote, you don’t get to be angry about the result for the next 5 years.

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/this-is-what-these-images-on-the-internet-this-week-tell-us-about-the-world-we-live-in-2-122566

[Davkaus]

57 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Is the next election going to be 2022 then?

I just assumed they'd still be another in 2020...sort of a year old verdict on Brexit at that point.

Each term is 5 years, unless 2/3 of Parliament agree to an election, or a vote of no confidence is passed. So yes, the next one is in 2022, unless another early election is called before then.

 

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

i kinda get most of that  but didn't we have claims of an unelected PM that was running scared of getting her own mandate ....weren't labour supportiers ( tbf it may have been more remainers clutching at straws )  demanding she call an election soon as she became PM .... now she's doing just that the very same people * are accusing her of lying and  U-turning ... they are right of course but it just seems a weird stick to use when you've been given what you asked for 

...

* I'll qualify this by saying social media wise rather than anyone specifically on this forum 

If you're talking 'social media wise' rather than anyone on this forum then why put it in this thread?

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

of course the people citing election pledges are the people saying we need to raise taxes to save the NHS but that's another story

No they aren't (solely one single group of people).

Some of them may be the same people but some other people are pointing out that politicians break pledges.

Edited April 22, 2017 by snowychap

[Chindie]

Interesting tweet thread (nicked from elsewhere) regarding punishment budgets and this election. I wish there was a better way of putting it longer form thought than Twitter...

Quote

So we will get our punishment budgets. But they will be designed to address Brexit costs over time, almost imperceptibly

Basically argues that the OBR / Osborne 'Project Fear' *spit* figures pre referendum were actually ambitious and the actual impact of Brexit is more expected to be worse, especially if they do pursue the truly hard Brexit the nutters want, which has landed the government in a pickle that they've decided to try to fix with a new manifesto and new mandate to do the boiling frog thing. Basically this election is all things to all Tories.

[snowychap]

@Chindie

Here's a piece from that same chap which could have gone in the stay or go thread but is equally pertinent in here given that we'll get lots of talk about mandates, strong leadership and all that jazz during the election campaign and after should the Tories be returned as the government (especially with an increased majority):

Quote

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” – Lao Tzu 

On the United Kingdom’s journey toward exiting the European Union, passage of the Article 50 Bill, empowering the Government to trigger Article 50, is only the initial step. 

The United Kingdom’s ultimate destination will be inexorably shaped, not only by the outcome of the negotiation with the 27 remaining EU Member States, but perhaps more tangibly by the measures taken by the Government in the next 2 years to implement the agreed deal. 
Formalized as part of the proposed ‘Great Repeal Bill’, this hastily crafted, all encompassing, scrutiny-skipping, executive-buttressing, society-shaping legislative hodgepodge will be the Government’s attempt to neatly and smoothly facilitate the UK’s departure and withdrawal from over 40 years of EU law and jurisprudence.

Across a vast range of areas, from national security to the environment and from pensions to consumer protection, the Great Repeal Bill is an opportunity for the incumbent Government to reshape the United Kingdom’s legal, regulatory and political landscape for decades to come, to re-craft virtually every facet of British democracy and to perhaps even redefine society itself.

 The Prime Minister’s confirmation that the UK will seek a “hard” Brexit and subsequent publication of a White Paper establishing a high level, if excessively vague, overview of the Government’s objectives provides some welcome clarity, granting us some insight into what the Government’s key objectives will be. 

 In practice, the extent to which the Government will be able to deliver upon these goals will rely, not only on the outcome of negotiations, but, more fundamentally, upon the extent to which the UK is prepared to maintain and replicate agreed EU frameworks across the range of legislative areas over which the EU has historically retained legislative competence.

 This is where the Great Repeal Bill comes in. The prevailing presumption upon the Government benches seems to be that this bill will be straightforward, that the process for drafting the bill will be methodical, consensual and relatively uncontroversial. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 Disentangling the UK’s laws from those of the EU, dual-bodies of law which have effectively co-mingled, developed and operated in tandem since 1973, is likely to prove one of the most complex and contentious legislative tasks ever embarked upon by Parliament. That they may have only 2 years within which to complete the task should raise questions over how a suitably robust framework for proper democratic process and parliamentary oversight can be implemented and achieved. 

 Adding further complexity is the extent to which this process will be dictated by the progress of the exit negotiation.

 The UK’s continuing participation in existing EU regulatory frameworks in areas such as public health and safety, environmental law, employee protections and beyond are all subject to negotiation. As a corollary, the future of the UK’s functional role within over 50 major EU agencies such as the European Food Safety Authority and the European Environment Agency, whose prescribed functional mandates have been transposed into domestic law, may be called into question.

 Determinations will be made as to whether the UK will continue to adhere to broadly equivalent regulatory frameworks or whether a material departure or diminution in regulatory standards might be necessary in order to secure free trade agreements with other nations, such as the United States or the Gulf States. Similarly, the executive functions currently discharged by these EU institutions within the UK may need to be assigned to new agencies. Existing agencies may need expanded mandates to deal with increased responsibilities. Others may be abolished entirely as the UK extricates itself entirely from a particular area of EU oversight.

 All of this, and much, much more, will need to be reflected in the Great Repeal Bill.

 And so, as a practical matter, there is unlikely to be much time for parliamentary scrutiny nor for the proper democratic oversight that such a fundamental re-writing of our nation’s legal and regulatory framework surely demands.

 Is Parliament capable of meeting this task? The limited bandwidth of Parliament while it attempts to divide its time between Brexit and the task of actually running the country will certainly pose difficulties. Allied to the meek and ineffective opposition provided by Jeremy Corbyn’s disjoined Labour party, the prospect of an effective free-hand being granted to the Government appears unavoidable.

 With decisions being made at the negotiating table in Brussels being delivered to Parliament as a fait accompli, to be codified into the laws of the UK as a means of giving effect to the deal being struck by Government negotiators, Labour MPs, terrified at the thought of being denounced as “wreckers” or “enemies of the people” will face overwhelming pressure to wave Government proposals through.

 In many areas, MPs may not actually have any chance to demonstrate even the merest pretence of providing appropriate scrutiny. The sheer volume of legislative amendments required and the expedited timeframe in which to implement the agreed exit agreement will inevitably dictate the use of so-called ‘Henry VIII’ clauses. Such clauses allow the Government to add a provision to a bill permitting it to subsequently amend the bill via the use of secondary legislation after it has become an act of parliament, without further Parliamentary scrutiny. 

 The instances of such clauses have, in recent times, been relatively rare given the clear and obvious threat they pose to the proper operation of parliamentary democracy. However, the Great Repeal Bill is a task virtually without historical precedent and, as the Prime Minister is likely to plead, it is arguable that the vesting of such legislative authority in the executive may prove necessary to ensure the proper functioning of government following the 2 year negotiation period.  

 We should be cautious. As Pitt the Younger once noted, “necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

 

[PompeyVillan]

4 hours ago, Awol said:

I'm no fan of May and won't be voting Conservative. I just think anyone who believes Jezza 'armed struggle' Corbyn can fix things is flat out delusional. 

It's not flat out delusional. He's got to win the votes first of course, I'll admit I think a Labour win is unlikely but to make such hold predictions about landslides is misleading. Because who really knows? Brexit and Trump and all.

[chrisp65]

Corbyn needs to point out to pensioners that the tory's are coming after their pensions.

He needs to point out to everyone that they are coming after the NHS.

He needs to point out to everyone that 'spreadsheet' Hammond messed up his first budget and now has warned he will be putting up taxes.

He needs to remind everyone of the existence of the tory hard right mental cases like Redwood.

He needs to ask if people are happy with the roll out of grammar schools.

He needs to promise a cross party fact and expert lead negotiating stance on Brexit. it's happening, let's not make it a Liam Fox economic melt down disaster.

Look like a leader, ram home some home truths about the liar May.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Repeat.

[darrenm]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

Mate, this post reeks of desperation - bordering on panic.

Nothing of the sort.

[blandy]

@chrisp65 - He also needs to get a simple message and repeat it endlessly, in the same way that the tories have done - bringing things back to that phrase over and over. It's a shame, but it works. "labour wrecked the economy..conservatives are cleaning up the mess" - completely untrue, but it worked. And it needs not to be about the NHS - that's already kind of understood. I think it needs to be along the lines of something he believes and that the other Labour MPs also agree and buy in to, and which is strongly felt throughout the country - We've had Occupy, Momentum, Starbucks protests, Google tax deals, Bankers let off, Levenson enquiry media let off  and all that - basically everyone thinks these big businesses and media moguls are Shysters the Tories help while they're beasting the disabled and the normal taxpaying working people - so Labour needs to have something to ram home tory implication with the sharlatans. "Looking after the people of this country, not the hedge fund and global elite" or something.

And as Cameron advised - wear a suit and look like a prime minister (and talk like one). Don't squabble with or avoid the media coverage - rise above it - ignore the looney Sun and Mail jibes, and focus on the owners if their papers give him abuse. Billionaire Australian-American Trump supporter Rupert Murdoch, Tax avoiding Barclay brothers, Scaremongering troll Paul Dacre.

And play nice with the Greens, Lib Dems, SNP at times. They can take seats off tories where Labour can't.