General Election 2017

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

The problem is the likes of Welsh Labour running it's own campaign here and asking Plaid voters to lend their vote and be tactical in opposing the tories. I really really considered doing it myself. Genuinely still considered it, stood in the booth with the pen in my hand.

Then the day after the election, tweeting that they smashed Plaid who's vote shrunk in places Labour unexpectedly won.

Very poor form.

In my constit., 'the left' as total votes would have beaten the tory, and that's with Labour having declined to bother campaigning. Labour reduced a majority of 7,000 to a majority of 2,000 with 3,500 people having voted Plaid / Lib Dem / Womens Equality / Green / Pirate. 

Yeah, I considered tactically voting LibDem to oust the sitting Tory, thinking my Labour vote would be wasted as usual. I didn't though, and in the event it would have been totally the wrong tactic - out of the blue, the Labour guy wiped out the Liberal vote and got within 200 of the Tory lead. Maybe tactical voters cost him the win. So it's a shit system. But I wasn't talking about tactical voting up thread aways, I was suggesting voting for the party you most support, but accepting that they can - and indeed should - make alliances with other, broadly sympathetic MPs in Parliament, to concentrate resistance to a common enemy. 

[darrenm]

5 hours ago, snowychap said:

What do you mean by this?

Metaphorically. As I understand it, Labour are preparing an alternative Queen's speech. That means they think it's worth presenting. It also means it would involve drawing attention to any coalition with the DUP being invalid and a confidence and supply not equating a majority anyway. 

4 hours ago, Chindie said:

No offence, but 'it's happening' didn't happen either. They missed a majority by 60 odd seats. So I wouldn't be too smug.

Yeah I, like just about everyone, got it wrong. I was hopeful I would be wrong. And I'm happy to be wrong. 

Corbyn will never hold a majority. I'll happy send £20 to any charity of your choice if he does. It's not happening. He did spectacularly well and still came massively short. He's not going to get there.

There's been some incredible swings. And some proper scalps of seats. Obviously it wasn't a majority but Conservative took 1 seat from Labour. From the starting position to denying the Tories a majority can't be understated. It's absolutely incredible with the whole weight of the hate rags against them. It's a non-victory victory and I think it qualifies as a 'it's happening' personally.

4 hours ago, jon_c said:

You can't say never in current world politics, but he'd have to gain 40 more seats. That's the current gain doubled plus ten. And people are high fiving about how amazing the current gain was. 

Realistically, if he can't do something about his lack of popularity in Scotland, it won't happen. 

The swing on Thursday night with the big Tory seats going with the Tory media backlash over the DUP and the huge amount of positive press for Corbyn and Labour, together with the papers turning on May a little bit suddenly validates Corbyn. The seats Labour didn't gain in were quite working class and tend to be affected by newspapers more. With momentum and Momentum behind him he'll be difficult to stop. I'm not sure what will happen with the Tory shit show but I'd absolutely bank on a Labour majority if another GE was called soon. Not many seats have to swing only slightly to get a majority.

Take my constituency for example. The most Tory place on earth. Labour gave it up and let a local noname stand with hardly any campaigning because they're against a huge majority with Sajid Javid. We still swung left. Javid increased by 2%, the kid increased by 5%. If they parachuted a big name in they'd take this seat.

[PompeyVillan]

45 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Actually, it would be all the people who wanted a non-Tory government voting Labour, but the tribal nitpicking won't allow them to do it. 

Aye, with IndyRef2 seemingly dead in the water

 

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

The problem is the likes of Welsh Labour running it's own campaign here and asking Plaid voters to lend their vote and be tactical in opposing the tories. I really really considered doing it myself. Genuinely still considered it, stood in the booth with the pen in my hand.

Then the day after the election, tweeting that they smashed Plaid who's vote shrunk in places Labour unexpectedly won.

Very poor form.

In my constit., 'the left' as total votes would have beaten the tory, and that's with Labour having declined to bother campaigning. Labour reduced a majority of 7,000 to a majority of 2,000 with 3,500 people having voted Plaid / Lib Dem / Womens Equality / Green / Pirate. 

The Labour still have plenty of act getting together before they can win an election. 

What the Blairites need to realise is that they're part of the reason people don't want to vote Labour. The infighting and squabbling is bad for the party, it errodes trust and puts the competence of the party into question.

Corbyn has a mandate to lead, trying to snipe at him like Chris Leslie did this morning is distasteful and unhelpful.

The people want Corbyn, so support him and see what happens. Get with the programme Scottish and Welsh Labour and see what happens. If it doesn't work at the next election, have a leadership contest.

Until then, back the bloody leader and see what happens. 

[Xela]

On the flip side, despite an arrogant and inept campaign, the tories still had 60 more seats. Surely they will never run an election campaign as bad as that ever again? All they need is a leader who is less of a train wreck and a slight revision of their manifesto (ie don't annoy the silver voters) and they could easily regain a lot of those marginal seats and have a majority.

Labour did very well and Corbyn has gone up in a lot of peoples estimations but it is still going to be tough for Labour to make that next jump into having most seats. Interesting times ahead. 

[darrenm]

4 hours ago, Chindie said:

I know Darren wants his moment in the sun, and credit to him for getting closer then anyone else, I just can't fool myself into thinking Corbyn is going to turn things further to a majority. Don't get me wrong, I'd much sooner have a Corbyn led Labour in power than more or less anyone else. I'd be quite happy to see him in No.10.

But I just don't believe it'll happen. I think we're in a period of hung parliaments now, because of the division in the country. I'm not that against coalitions (provided they aren't the horror show we're about to get) as compromise isn't a bad thing in politics IMO. The Tories have been burned by austerity, a lack of talent, and horrible manifesto. but have their traditional and sizable support to fall back on and their catchphrases and memes that carried them through coalition are burned into the public psyche - hence Labour still poll badly on the economy. Even in light of disaster, which Brexit will almost certainly be, and recession, which is coming, that support will not wane enough IMO. Traditionally in times of crisis, things go right. They are unlikely to turn left.

Labour aren't trusted on Brexit either and are tarred with the 'failings of immigration'. They've lost support from the working class Leave voter. They've gained the higher education vote, and they've managed to mobilise the youth, to Corbyn's credit. But they need an absolutely colossal shift. They need to crush the SNP and Scottish Tories, when the Scottish Labour party is a complete mess, and make regional gains in England. That's a huge ask, even with the SNP stumble.

I suspect there well be another election in the 15 months, I suspect there will be a new Tory leader and they will be very, very careful about their campaign, and I suspect we'll get another hung parliament. Could Corbyn be PM? Perhaps. As a Labour majority? It's too but an ask IMO. Even against a backdrop of upheaval.

But. I hope I'm wrong. I'm quite happy with a Corbyn led government, coalition or not, especially against the alternatives.

Trust me, if I wanted a moment in the sun, I'd be quoting loads of posts from weeks ago. I haven't because, well, it's a bit petty. Apologies for the virtue signalling. You may be right in this one and the 2 sides just cancel each other out. Or perhaps with the ground troops and social media savviness of Momentum, they'll be quite powerful now.

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Metaphorically. As I understand it, Labour are preparing an alternative Queen's speech. That means they think it's worth presenting. It also means it would involve drawing attention to any coalition with the DUP being invalid and a confidence and supply not equating a majority anyway.

To whom are they going to 'present' it? Some sort of press conference? Stick it on a website? Have it broadcast on C4?

What are you going on about with 'any coalition with the DUP being invalid'? And 'not equating a majority'? You don't appear to be making much sense here, I'm afraid.

Edited June 10, 2017 by snowychap

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, Xela said:

On the flip side, despite an arrogant and inept campaign, the tories still had 60 more seats. Surely they will never run an election campaign as bad as that ever again? All they need is a leader who is less of a train wreck and a slight revision of their manifesto (ie don't annoy the silver voters) and they could easily regain a lot of those marginal seats and have a majority.

Labour did very well and Corbyn has gone up in a lot of peoples estimations but it is still going to be tough for Labour to make that next jump into having most seats. Interesting times ahead. 

That 60 seat majority has to be taken in the context of the expectation and starting position and just how close 60 of those seats were after swinging left.

Tory detoxification didn't work and they're now even more of the nasty party.

Relative success is bringing the Blairites back in. I think Tories won't know how to fight them. 

[Villan_of_oz]

2 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

ALL politicians fail their folk.

If they could do even a half decent job, the world would be a much better place.

Very well said mate, probably the only time I'll say that to you 

[darrenm]

6 minutes ago, snowychap said:

To whom are they going to 'present' it? Some sort of press conference? Stick it on a website?

What are you going on about with 'any coalition with the DUP being invalid'? And 'not equating a majority'? You don't appear to be making much sense here, I'm afraid.

Gah I can't find it now. There were a few tweets saying Labour would present their own Queen's speech alongside Conservative's. Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the standard procedure is to form the government, get the Queen's permission then present a Queen's speech in parliament with a budget. Then the house takes a vote for the government to be formed. According to Sinn Fein a coalition with DUP breaks the good Friday agreement so it could be argued to be invalid. And if it's confidence and supply it's not an official majority. So it's good grounds to say it's not a correct majority. This is just what I've picked up from political commentators on Twitter so I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

[PompeyVillan]

But even a 'rainbow coalition' couldn't form a majority could it? 

It would be relying on independents and, crikey, the DUP to get things through the commons. 

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

But even a 'rainbow coalition' couldn't form a majority could it? 

It would be relying on independents and, crikey, the DUP to get things through the commons. 

No it couldn't. It's probably mostly posturing by Labour.

But if they can say the Tory government will still be a minority they can at least present it as a minority against a minority. And 1 has a leader with no confidence who has just lost her majority by calling an unnecessary election.

[Chindie]

A rainbow minority government isn't happening.

We're stuck with the 'informal' coalition of evil until the Tories have let themselves some room to breathe, bin Theresa and have a new regime settled enough to feel like they can have another crack.

[snowychap]

50 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Gah I can't find it now. There were a few tweets saying Labour would present their own Queen's speech alongside Conservative's.

I don't know who has suggested that this can happen. The Queen's speech is given by the monarch on behalf of the government not on behalf of the opposition.

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the standard procedure is to form the government, get the Queen's permission then present a Queen's speech in parliament with a budget.

Yep (though the permission from the Queen is rather a constitutional formality).

Quote

Then the house takes a vote for the government to be formed.

Nope.

Quote

According to Sinn Fein a coalition with DUP breaks the good Friday agreement so it could be argued to be invalid.

I've seen that said by plenty of people other than Sinn Fein but I've seen comments that it's more of a political issue than a legal one and even if it were a legal one then the problem is with the Good Friday Agreement rather than an issue within parliament.

Quote

And if it's confidence and supply it's not an official majority. So it's good grounds to say it's not a correct majority.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. What is an 'official majority' or a 'correct majority' and what does that have to do with parliamentary process.

All that matters is whether legislation is passed or not.

 

I'll qualify all of what I'm posting here by saying that May obviously has no respect for the FTPA as shown by her statement about the early election when she 'called it' and that (as per the article I quoted earlier and many other debates I've seen - including an interesting one on the BBC Parliament channel the other day) these things haven't actually played out before so no one can quite be sure on how (or even whether) the mechanisms will be followed.

It may well be that this coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, et al. get to present a Queen's speech but, if procedures are followed properly, that would have to be after May and the Tory party have decided that they can't command the confidence of the house (or that the Tory party under a new leader couldn't) or that a specific motion of no confidence has been passed or motion of confidence failed (as per FTPA).

Currently, though: May is PM; the Tory party have 318 seats which would be enough to carry a Queen's speech should the DUP abstain; even if they lost the Queen's speech vote, that doesn't count as a confidence vote as per the FTPA so a motion of no confidence would also have to be passed in order for the FTPA to be enforced and for us to go in to further unknown territory.

It's worth reading the article from the Institute for Government that I posted earlier. I know it was the second half of a long post of mine but it's worth going through it. Honest.

 

6 hours ago, snowychap said:

A couple of pieces from the Institute for Government regarding hung parliaments and the FTPA.

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by snowychap
The bit from that article didn't quite make sense where it was - I think I was distracted by the rugby.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

How do parties that people really support ever get a foothold if people keep voting against their most hated party rather than for the one they really support?

It all just comes back to how broken Britain's supposed 'democracy' really is.

I think this is the best objection to my point, and I have a lot of sympathy. I prefer AV top-up as a system, and I would be very happy if that were introduced. But we have the system we have. 

[darrenm]

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I don't know who has suggested that this can happen. The Queen's speech is given by the monarch on behalf of the government not on behalf of the opposition.

Yep (though the permission from the Queen is rather a constitutional formality).

Nope.

I've seen that said by plenty of people other than Sinn Fein but I've seen comments that it's more of a political issue than a legal one and even if it were a legal one then the problem is with the Good Friday Agreement rather than an issue within parliament.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. What is an 'official majority' or a 'correct majority' and what does that have to do with parliamentary process.

All that matters is whether legislation is passed or not.

As per the article I posted earlier from the Institute for Government:

 

I'll qualify all of this by saying that May obviously has no respect for the FTPA as shown by her statement about the early election when she 'called it' and that (as per the article I quoted and many other debates I've seen - including an interesting one on the BBC Parliament channel the other day) these things haven't actually played out before so no one can quite be sure on how (or even whether) the mechanisms will be followed.

It may well be that this coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, et al. get to present a Queen's speech but, if procedures are followed properly, that would have to be after May and the Tory party have decided that they can't command the confidence of the house (or that the Tory party under a new leader couldn't) or that a specific motion of no cofidence has been passed or motion of confidence failed (as per FTPA).

Currently, though, May is PM; the Tory party have 318 seats which would be enough to carry a Queen's speech should the DUP abstain; even if they lost the Queen's speech vote, that doesn't count as a confidence vote as per the FTPA so a motion of no confidence would also have to be passed in order for the FTPA to be enforced and for us to go in to further unknown territory.

It's worth reading that article. I know it was the second half of a long post of mine but it's worth going through it. Honest.

 

 

I think this disagrees with a few bits at the top. On the phone so excuse the lack of correct quoting.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-vows-oust-theresa-10601306

She’s then got to present a programme to

 Parliament.

“We will – obviously – amend the Queen’s Speech. There’s a possibility of voting it down it and we’re going to push that all the way.

The election result saw Mrs May scramble to form a minority government to have any kind of Commons majority.

And she enlisted the help of the hard-right DUP to get her over the line.

But Mr Corbyn believes there is enough opposition in the rest of the House – and on Mrs May’s own backbenches – to defeat the Government.

So perhaps without any kind of cross party support, they'll amend the Queen's speech, then challenge the normal formality of voting it in by appealing to more than half the house. It'll be fascinating to see what happens.

Official majority - my words for a government governing with a coalition as opposed to confidence and supply which obviously is just an understanding. I know there's technically no such thing. Correct majority - thought it would be self-explanatory. If something is correct it's right. As in valid. Just saying that's how they would try to present it possibly. I don't know. 

[snowychap]

28 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I think this disagrees with a few bits at the top.

It doesn't. He's talking about proposing amendments to the Queen's speech and not presenting an alternative Queen's speech.

Quote

So perhaps without any kind of cross party support, they'll amend the Queen's speech, then challenge the normal formality of voting it in by appealing to more than half the house.

They can't amend it unless it's voted for. They can propose amendments (as can anyone, I think - see the Tory rebel amendments made and accepted by Cameron last year so that they didn't get defeated*) and then those amendments get voted on (i.e. hoping that there is ' enough opposition in the rest of the House – and on Mrs May’s own backbenches').

28 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Official majority - my words for a government governing with a coalition as opposed to confidence and supply which obviously is just an understanding. I know there's technically no such thing. Correct majority - thought it would be self-explanatory. If something is correct it's right. As in valid. Just saying that's how they would try to present it possibly. I don't know.

But none of that means anything. You're just inventing terms that have no relevance to the situation.

 

*Or were those amendments actually proposed by the government in the end?

 

Edit: I do agree with you when you say, " It'll be fascinating to see what happens."

Edited June 10, 2017 by snowychap

[Brumstopdogs]

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, snowychap said:

They can propose amendments (as can anyone, I think...)

@darrenm

For more information on Queen's Speech amendments see this HoC Library Briefing Paper (it's a pdf) - excerpt:

Quote

Queen's Speech debate: selection of amendments - Standing Order No 33

Summary

The Queen’s Speech, which sets out the Government’s legislative programme for the forthcoming parliamentary session, is debated on a motion for an Humble Address thanking Her Majesty for the Gracious Speech. The motion is amendable and amendments can be selected for debate on the final two days of debate on the Queen’s Speech.

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by snowychap

[darrenm]

11 minutes ago, Brumstopdogs said:

Discussing democracy

[tinker]

How anyone can vote for her in the next GE is beyond reasonable comprehension. If she resigned now and gives Boris or Davies the chance then the anti hard Brexit brigand would wipe the Tories out .

People want out of immigration that can access our social security system and the  NHS. They don't want to have laws made in Europe. Most of the other details are of no concern, basically no hard Brexit

 Trade deal is what we need  Corbyn sees it , big business sees it , the youth of our nation sees it . 

For me Corbyn gives us a chance of real change , no ego, if your policies are sound then he will back them, despite the left or right of it.

He needs to keep touring the unis, keep engaging the electorate and follow his principles of not attacking his opposition , just stating his position. 

He really is special , people just can't believe he's for real so they think he's mad, he Isn't fake, he walks the walk he talks .

My only worry is that these types of people don't seem to stay around for that long, one way or another .........