May seeks snap election

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Despite attempts to make the election a Brexit-vote 2.0 that failed as the Liberal Democrats, the most vehement anti-Brexiteers, did not perform too well.

Had this been the end of a normal 5-year election term the result wouldnt be too bad for May. However, as she foolishly and greedily called this unnecessarily early election the outcome was a disaster.

This election was winnerless. Why does the media portray the Labour-party as some sort of a winner? Yes, they performed better than expected but still finished second.

No general election is about one thing. Brexit was supported by half the population but not many want yet another referendum on that in the near future.

Re the Lib Dems - FPTP. You only get one vote in their/our system so you have to pick somebody who has a chance of winning even if you disagree with them on a whole load of issues. People (esp. the young) were sick of the Tories and voted for a crazy guy in preference to them.

I see May was talking about her percentage of the popular vote as a reason for her staying in power - which isn't supposed to matter in FPTP. 

 

  

[-TSS-]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's a pretty healthy Minority. You'd need the full opposition to topple them. And there is some significant difference of opinion there. 

Manageable. The latest results give the Tories 318/650  which is 8 seats short of majority but as there were once again 7 Sinn Fein MPs elected and they always refuse to take the seats as that requires swearing the oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Therefore and absolute majority is 322 seats.

[kactus]

Things will hot up for May big time in the next few months. She will have tough time in negotion with EU. Labour has bolstered their position gaining an extra 29 seat at the expense of Tories. With the imminent election in Getmany Merckel is in a good position and France has got Marcon. They will negotiate tough with May. Labour, who favours a soft Brexit wil become more popular. Watch this space....

[kactus]

1 minute ago, -TSS- said:

Manageable. The latest results give the Tories 318/650  which is 8 seats short of majority but as there were once again 7 Sinn Fein MPs elected and they always refuse to take the seats as that requires swearing the oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Therefore and absolute majority is 322 seats.

Bear in mind that even with coalition with DUP, tories will still have tough time to pass bills through parliament...

[-TSS-]

I cant see the Tories sticking with May for the next five years. By calling this unnecessarily early election she was bound to end up either a shrewd tactician or a greedy fool.

The outcome was the latter.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

This election was winnerless. Why does the media portray the Labour-party as some sort of a winner? Yes, they performed better than expected but still finished second.

It would have been better to portray the Tories as losers because they didn't win. Their performance sucked. This election was yet another European repudiation of western right-wing parties bent on taking a hard-boiled bellicose Trumpian approach to everything. Walls, travel bans, dementia taxes, climate change contempt, and generalized loathing for anything the least bit liberal, progressive and un-conservative in thought, form, or function just isn't flying as well as hoped.

Amongst other things May's attempt to repudiate the politically entwined nature of Europe by embracing a more isolationist stance has been buffeted by the turbulence of an increasingly politically entwined world. Electorates are not content to just steer a more progressive course at home they're as intent to steer the planet that way too. That May has had little choice but to embrace a party as odious as the DUP to stay aloft is particularly encouraging. Even more encouraging is how a surge of young voter participation apparently also played a big role in May's failure.

[-TSS-]

I'm glad at the outcome of this election; the Tories remain on top, which is essential to get through Brexit but the election was a slap in the face for the stupid woman of a PM who will hopefully have to go.

It was only some time ago when the British Parliament passed a law of fixed-term parliaments the purpose of which was exactly to get rid of these "snap elections". Even though the justification for this election was not contested by the opposition the very thing it was held was against the spirit of the law.

Snap elections are not democratic. Elections should take place at regular intervals the exact date of which always known to all participants well beforehand and giving all of them time to prepare for the vote. This kind of gallup-democracy as May tried to pull off that the polls look good, let's go for a vote, is not fair.

Btw, didn't the Canadian parliament also pass a similar act of fixed-term elections or am I confusing it with some other country?

[Argus]

The scary thing about this how close another manifestly incompetent individual came to winning an election. Jeremy Corbyn is just about the only major politician who, if he were going up against Trump, would force me to vote for Trump. I begin to wonder if democracy can survive in this day and age of social media, lousy educations and short attention spans.

They say Labour got most of the younger vote, that younger people don't see anything wrong with nationalizing industry. Duh!

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I cant see the Tories sticking with May for the next five years.

She ran an execrable campaign. She was timid and uncertain, wouldn't debate the others, backtracked, and made stupid decisions. Their party manifesto stating the elderly would have to pay for their own home care and would lose universal benefits if they had assets over over 100k pounds was insane. It badly hurt the Tories with their core vote but didn't get them a single thing from younger voters.

[-TSS-]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

She ran an execrable campaign. She was timid and uncertain, wouldn't debate the others, backtracked, and made stupid decisions. Their party manifesto stating the elderly would have to pay for their own home care and would lose universal benefits if they had assets over over 100k pounds was insane. It badly hurt the Tories with their core vote but didn't get them a single thing from younger voters.

Yes, I also read that part about the Tories threatening the core voters, the elderly, that they would have to pay for their own care. The ensuing damage-control didn't help them at all.

They will last a full term but that silly woman can't be at the helm. They need someone competent.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

The EU and DUP are going to demand serious concessions over Brexit. I can't see the party staying together on this. 

[kactus]

Something people fail to realise is that DUP has has links with terrorism. The coalition of Tories with this terrorist group will only further weaken's May's stance...

She should resign....

[DogOnPorch]

11 minutes ago, kactus said:

Something people fail to realise is that DUP has has links with terrorism. The coalition of Tories with this terrorist group will only further weaken's May's stance...

She should resign....

 

I remember standing at #10 a long time ago looking at the damage from a Provo grenade...up pulls a big car. Out jumps PM Heath...hero of getting Britain into the EU (then EC). A fellow taps me on the shoulder and points to Heath...

"It's him."

Me: "Huh?"

"It's HIM...Heath...too late to meet the Irish."

Still remember that...heh. Not happy...me thinks.

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[SpankyMcFarland]

People are waking up to who the DUP are:

https://www.change.org/p/winston-no-coalition-with-the-dup-may-out-postmanpratt1

 

[Argus]

14 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Yes, I also read that part about the Tories threatening the core voters, the elderly, that they would have to pay for their own care. The ensuing damage-control didn't help them at all.

They will last a full term but that silly woman can't be at the helm. They need someone competent.

They don't need to. They need to last long enough to walk away from that manifesto and reassure seniors, and hopefully get a new leader. Labour should have been slaughtered with Corbyn in charge, and was going to be till that manifesto and May's poor performance hammered them.

[-TSS-]

I guess that had this been the end of a normal 5-year electoral term the Tories would have won comfortably.

I think people didnt like the nature of this election of seizing the moment to take advantage of the opponent's perceived state of weakness. 

[JamesHackerMP]

I can't answer for our Canadian friends, but since no one has answered your question, I did not hear anything about Fixed-Term parliaments in Canada.  Am I wrong guys?

How did she manage to pull a snap election with a law on the books intended to prevent exactly that?

[-TSS-]

It speaks volumes about the stupidity of the FPTP-system that in the last election two years ago the Tories managed to get an absolute majority in Parliament with 37% of the votes but this time with 42% they couldn't.

As for the fixed-term law there is a way out of it if 2/3 of the MP's vote in favour of holding early elections, which in my opinion is wrong. I think an early election should only be held if there is some political deadlock or a vote of no-confidence against the government.

This election was held because the polls looked good for the government and the opposition which keeps on saying how they are so much better than the government and would do things much better they would make fools of themselves by voting against holding early elections.

[DBlow]

On 6/10/2017 at 1:11 AM, Argus said:

The scary thing about this how close another manifestly incompetent individual came to winning an election. Jeremy Corbyn is just about the only major politician who, if he were going up against Trump, would force me to vote for Trump. I begin to wonder if democracy can survive in this day and age of social media, lousy educations and short attention spans.

They say Labour got most of the younger vote, that younger people don't see anything wrong with nationalizing industry. Duh!

 

You're mistaken if you think nationalisations only have support from the young - back when UKIP were riding high their voter base was overwhelmingly old, white, working-class men and you found they supported nationalisation as much as Labour voters - many of whom have seemingly returned to voting Labour in support for that. 

6 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I guess that had this been the end of a normal 5-year electoral term the Tories would have won comfortably.

I think people didnt like the nature of this election of seizing the moment to take advantage of the opponent's perceived state of weakness. 

I think it was much more simpler than that - her opportunistic manoeuvre in calling the election at the peak of her popularity enabled to feel so sure about winning that she never bothered to offer anything in their manifesto (beyond the tiny minority of wealthy people who want more austerity and fox hunting).

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

It speaks volumes about the stupidity of the FPTP-system that in the last election two years ago the Tories managed to get an absolute majority in Parliament with 37% of the votes but this time with 42% they couldn't.

As for the fixed-term law there is a way out of it if 2/3 of the MP's vote in favour of holding early elections, which in my opinion is wrong. I think an early election should only be held if there is some political deadlock or a vote of no-confidence against the government.

This election was held because the polls looked good for the government and the opposition which keeps on saying how they are so much better than the government and would do things much better they would make fools of themselves by voting against holding early elections.

I completely agree with your points about the stupidity of FPTP and the Fixed Term act, but they failed to get a majority because their main opposition managed to cut their lead from 7% down to 2%. 

The pollster who got the closest to the general election results has produced the first post-election poll:-

Lab 45% (+5)
Con 39% (-4)
Lib 7% (nc)
UKIP 3% (+1)
Others 6% (-3)

[Argus]

18 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I can't answer for our Canadian friends, but since no one has answered your question, I did not hear anything about Fixed-Term parliaments in Canada.  Am I wrong guys?

How did she manage to pull a snap election with a law on the books intended to prevent exactly that?

There are no fixed terms under the British parliamentary system, other than those adopted by parliament here in Canada, and perhaps in other places. But what Parliament makes it can unmake, so such things are not binding.  Even after the Tories put it in here they broke it soon after, then on the next occasion felt themselves morally bound to stick to it. Which was dumb, because if they'd gone for election six months earlier they'd probably still have won. The handy thing (for the government) under a parliamentary system is you can choose the time of the election so as to maximize your chances. Though going three years early is a bit much, even if you do have a new leader.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

15 hours ago, DBlow said:

I think it was much more simpler than that - her opportunistic manoeuvre in calling the election at the peak of her popularity enabled to feel so sure about winning that she never bothered to offer anything in their manifesto (beyond the tiny minority of wealthy people who want more austerity and fox hunting).

This is the problem with a lot of voters, today. It's a problem in both Canada and the UK. Voters who pay little or no taxes don't see a problem with voting for whichever party promises them the most stuff. And if it has to raise taxes (on other people) or borrow the money, well so what. People want stuff. And they're not the ones who have to pay for it anyway. Half the population in both Canada and the UK pay little or no income tax due to our progressive tax system.. So, particularly in economically hard hit areas, they'll generally vote for whoever offers them more stuff.

But that's ultimately the way to get your country into huge economic problems like Greece. Saying only a tiny minority of 'wealthy people' want austerity is basically saying only those who pay tax want austerity. Which is really quite stunningly self-serving. How long do you think a country can go on borrowing money before all those loans come due and suddenly seniors find their pensions yanked away?

Almost half of Britons pay no income tax while the richest are now shouldering the biggest burden on record, a new analysis has found.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people. 

Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

 

[-TSS-]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

There are no fixed terms under the British parliamentary system, other than those adopted by parliament here in Canada, and perhaps in other places. But what Parliament makes it can unmake, so such things are not binding.  Even after the Tories put it in here they broke it soon after, then on the next occasion felt themselves morally bound to stick to it. Which was dumb, because if they'd gone for election six months earlier they'd probably still have won. The handy thing (for the government) under a parliamentary system is you can choose the time of the election so as to maximize your chances. Though going three years early is a bit much, even if you do have a new leader.

In the USA all the elections are fixed-term and the election-calendar is very carefully scheduled as breaking the schedule would bugger up things very much.

I would have thought that as Canada is also a federal country the same would apply there too but apparently not.

[Hudson Jones]

On 6/9/2017 at 0:38 PM, -TSS- said:

I cant see the Tories sticking with May for the next five years. By calling this unnecessarily early election she was bound to end up either a shrewd tactician or a greedy fool.

The outcome was the latter.

I don't think she was the driving force behind the call for an election. That decision was made by the top brass based on the polls. Unfortunately for her, she could not deliver as a leader. The fact that she skipped out on a debate took away her credibility as a leader.

 

[DBlow]

On 2017-6-11 at 5:14 PM, Argus said:

This is the problem with a lot of voters, today. It's a problem in both Canada and the UK. Voters who pay little or no taxes don't see a problem with voting for whichever party promises them the most stuff. And if it has to raise taxes (on other people) or borrow the money, well so what. People want stuff. And they're not the ones who have to pay for it anyway. Half the population in both Canada and the UK pay little or no income tax due to our progressive tax system.. So, particularly in economically hard hit areas, they'll generally vote for whoever offers them more stuff.

But that's ultimately the way to get your country into huge economic problems like Greece. Saying only a tiny minority of 'wealthy people' want austerity is basically saying only those who pay tax want austerity. Which is really quite stunningly self-serving. How long do you think a country can go on borrowing money before all those loans come due and suddenly seniors find their pensions yanked away?

Almost half of Britons pay no income tax while the richest are now shouldering the biggest burden on record, a new analysis has found.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the proportion of working-age adults who do not pay income tax has risen from 34.3 per cent to 43.8 per cent, equivalent to 23million people. 

Over the same period the amount of income tax paid by the richest 1 per cent has risen from 24.4 per cent to 27.5 per cent, meaning that 300,000 people pay more than a quarter of the nation's income tax.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/

 

No, and your stats don't bear that out below (ignoring the fact that income tax is just one tax, and the gradual movement away in recent decades towards indirect taxation); you've just quoted that 56% of working-age adults pay income tax. If all of those ~29m who pay tax supported austerity then the Tories would not have had any issues. In fact the Tories trailed Labour in every working-age bracket. Conversely holding a sizeable lead amongst retirees. 

Significant frontline cuts to the public sector workforce has left the NHS and policing in disarray, and this concerned the vast majority of the voting public away from further austerity. 

It's also worth noting that the burden on the richest 1 per cent has naturally risen as their share of the entire UK wealth has risen (grown from 44% to 49% in less than 5 years). 

Anyway, current polling from YouGov has leadership approval (subtracting disapproval from approval) at:

+6% Labour (0% Corbyn)
-21% Conservative (-34% May)

Who would make a better PM?

39% Corbyn
39% May

Support for another General Election in Autumn?

43% Support
38% Oppose

Edited June 15, 2017 by DBlow

[Argus]

5 hours ago, DBlow said:

No, and your stats don't bear that out below (ignoring the fact that income tax is just one tax, and the gradual movement away in recent decades towards indirect taxation); you've just quoted that 56% of working-age adults pay income tax. If all of those ~29m who pay tax supported austerity then the Tories would not have had any issues. In fact the Tories trailed Labour in every working-age bracket. Conversely holding a sizeable lead amongst retirees. 

You're not likely to have such unanimity among taxpayers. I'd like to point out that some who pay income taxes pay very little, whereas others pay a lot. But if you take the ones who don't pay any income tax and say that the Tories will get virtually no support from this group, then it doesn't become very hard for other groups to win out. It's not a surprise that Labour led greatly among youth, who largely pay no income taxes. I mean, this is basic behavioural science here. If you're not paying taxes but instead benefit from government spending then you'll always vote in whoever wants the most government spending. It's no accident you always find the public service unions supporting the Left wing parties that want to expand government services, not the Right wing ones who want to cut them back.

5 hours ago, DBlow said:

Significant frontline cuts to the public sector workforce has left the NHS and policing in disarray, and this concerned the vast majority of the voting public away from further austerity.

So what's the answer? Just keep borrowing more money without limits? Because only 'mean' people make cutbacks to services? Services shouldn't depend on how much money is available to support them?