2017 General Election thread

[londonblue]

where I live stayed LibDem. Where I canvas in Croydon Central in 2015 it was a Tory seat by 165 votes, in 2017 it has become a Labour gain by over 5,000 votes so that is a big win.

Rather embarrassingly the outgoing Tory had written a book called 'How to win a marginal seat', presumably it will now be reprinted with an additional chapter 'and then lose it 2 years later'

Regardless of political persuasion, anyone who does that deserves to be trounced.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That's the point, it may have been costed, but it was poorly done. The IFS said it simply doesn't add up. I know who I believe.

did the IFS say the Tory manifesto added up? In fact have the IFS ever endorsed any manifesto? The 2017 manifestos were pulled together over just a few days - one needed tweaking and one needed to be finalised after the election with a pile of green papers.

 

[dloman]

If the Tories went for Boris, then they might as well offer No 10 to Labour and not bother turning up.

Really? He managed to comfortably win two London mayoral elections in what is a very pro Labour city.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Not just the IRA. How about Hamas and Hezbollah? Not only did he call them his friends (which has been widely reported), but a few sentences later on in the same speech he said that they're both working for "peace and social justice".

yes it has been widely reported that he opened a meeting with Hamas with the phrase 'dear friends' and less widely reported (but I still no secret) is the fairly straight forward reasoning, that if you want a constructive meeting then you use cordial terminology to get things started. The meeting was to discuss peace in the Middle East so if he said they were working for peace and social justice - that was exactly the point of the meeting! He has stated he does not support Hamas. Why is this 'dear friends' meeting so widely reported? Kind of indicates he wasn't meeting them on a regular basis or this one wouldn't keep coming back into the conversations of those who want to discredit him.

For the record, to fully understand your objection - do you think only people such as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson should be meeting Hamas to discuss issues in the Middle East, or do you think no MPs at all should be in discussions with them?

 

[londonblue]

yes it has been widely reported that he opened a meeting with Hamas with the phrase 'dear friends' and less widely reported (but I still no secret) is the fairly straight forward reasoning, that if you want a constructive meeting then you use cordial terminology to get things started. The meeting was to discuss peace in the Middle East so if he said they were working for peace and social justice - that was exactly the point of the meeting! He has stated he does not support Hamas. Why is this 'dear friends' meeting so widely reported? Kind of indicates he wasn't meeting them on a regular basis or this one wouldn't keep coming back into the conversations of those who want to discredit him.

For the record, to fully understand your objection - do you think only people such as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson should be meeting Hamas to discuss issues in the Middle East, or do you think no MPs at all should be in discussions with them?

My objection is that he calls terrorists his friends and thinks that terrorist organisations are working for peace, and social justice, You are extremely naiive if you believe they are working for peace just because they meet a renegade backbencher who totally agrees with everything they say.

For the record, to understand your support for his stance, can you let me know why he only ever meets one side and not the other?

 

[MK Shrimper]

My objection is that he calls terrorists his friends and thinks that terrorist organisations are working for peace, and social justice, You are extremely naiive if you believe they are working for peace just because they meet a renegade backbencher who totally agrees with everything they say.

For the record, to understand your support for his stance, can you let me know why he only ever meets one side and not the other?

The state of Israel or the British Government (in the case of the IRA)? In the first case I very much doubt they'd want to as he's pro-Palestine.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

My objection is that he calls terrorists his friends and thinks that terrorist organisations are working for peace, and social justice, You are extremely naiive if you believe they are working for peace just because they meet a renegade backbencher who totally agrees with everything they say.

For the record, to understand your support for his stance, can you let me know why he only ever meets one side and not the other?

Because he was in favour of a united Ireland - so he wouldn't have the trust of the unionists. He did however campaign to get Ian Paisley's House of Commons suspension overturned - so you can see that he genuinely wanted to promote dialogue.





It has been widely reported that he opened a meeting with Hamas with the phrase 'dear friends' and less widely reported (but I still no secret) is the fairly straight forward reasoning, that if you want a constructive meeting then you use cordial terminology to get things started. The meeting was to discuss peace in the Middle East so if he said they were working for peace and social justice - that was exactly the point of the meeting! He has stated he does not support Hamas. Why is this 'dear friends' meeting so widely reported? Kind of indicates he wasn't meeting them on a regular basis or this one wouldn't keep coming back into the conversations of those who want to discredit him.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

My objection is that he calls terrorists his friends and thinks that terrorist organisations are working for peace, and social justice, You are extremely naiive if you believe they are working for peace just because they meet a renegade backbencher who totally agrees with everything they say.

For the record, to understand your support for his stance, can you let me know why he only ever meets one side and not the other?

with the Conservatives going into coalition/agreement of support with DUP - does that make you regret voting for Theresa May's team?

 

[RHB]

with the Conservatives going into coalition/agreement of support with DUP - does that make you regret voting for Theresa May's team?

Trying not to stick my nose in here ***, but I haven't seen any evidence of which way LB voted.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Trying not to stick my nose in here ***, but I haven't seen any evidence of which way LB voted.

he said he was going to vote for May as she would make a better leader than the other options - he may have changed his mind on the day, I wouldn't know, but certainly that is what he said he intended to do

 

[RHB]

he said he was going to vote for May as she would make a better leader than the other options - he may have changed his mind on the day, I wouldn't know, but certainly that is what he said he intended to do

And at this point I shall withdraw my nose.

 

[Hotman]

Labour wins Kensington by just 20 votes....I read that for just over 2000 votes, Corbyn would be PM today. Small margins..... :sad:

Ahh yes - that article which also said (but conveniently ignored by most) that with just over 200 extra votes, May would have had a clear majority. Not 2,300ish votes for a chance at a coalition between 5 parties - a couple of hundred for a clear majority.

Such a shame that a few hundred people were persuaded by the politics of envy, the "fully costed" ******** (which failed to take into account basic supply / demand logic) and half truths (such as explaining overseas tax without explaining their matching reliefs), and have left us in a position of potentially unsettling NI, just to get some semblance of majority (which would have happened informally had Corbyn tried to form a minority government...).

Little do the young voters know that had they been successful, it would have been turkeys voting for Christmas. Yes, they'd get fattened up now. Good luck in getting a private sector job in 5 years time though. It would have been for the many in Luxembourg, not the many here.

 

[Hotman]

My post above is of course not to detract from the fact that May had a disastrous campaign, combined with some great PR by Corbyns team. I'm a little concerned however by his wannabe rock star status - he seems to enjoy it a little too much. A dash of champagne socialism coming out?

 

[RHB]

Ahh yes - that article which also said (but conveniently ignored by most) that with just over 200 extra votes, May would have had a clear majority. Not 2,300ish votes for a chance at a coalition between 5 parties - a couple of hundred for a clear majority.

Such a shame that a few hundred people were persuaded by the politics of envy, the "fully costed" ******** (which failed to take into account basic supply / demand logic) and half truths (such as explaining overseas tax without explaining their matching reliefs), and have left us in a position of potentially unsettling NI, just to get some semblance of majority (which would have happened informally had Corbyn tried to form a minority government...).

Little do the young voters know that had they been successful, it would have been turkeys voting for Christmas. Yes, they'd get fattened up now. Good luck in getting a private sector job in 5 years time though. It would have been for the many in Luxembourg, not the many here.

So are you saying that Theresa May and the Conservative Party deserved a clear majority based on her election campaign and strategy?

Later - The joys of not hitting the refresh button before posting. You've sort of answered my question.

 

[Benfleet A1]

My post above is of course not to detract from the fact that May had a disastrous campaign, combined with some great PR by Corbyns team. I'm a little concerned however by his wannabe rock star status - he seems to enjoy it a little too much. A dash of champagne socialism coming out?

Where have you been hiding?

 

[Hotman]

So are you saying that Theresa May and the Conservative Party deserved a clear majority based on her election campaign and strategy?

Nah, you didn't read my second post. They did however deserve a clear majority based on their manifesto, and on stuff like "how the economy works".

 

[Hotman]

Where have you been hiding?

it's been a while!

 

[RHB]

Really? He managed to comfortably win two London mayoral elections in what is a very pro Labour city.

And you think that his performance since being Mayor of London has shown him to be a leader in waiting?

 

[RHB]

Nah, you didn't read my second post. They did however deserve a clear majority based on their manifesto, and on stuff like "how the economy works".

Yeah, I've amended my original post. As to the Tory manifesto, well I think a large chunk of the voting populace would not agree with that view.

 

[Hotman]

Yeah, I've amended my original post. As to the Tory manifesto, well I think a large chunk of the voting populace would not agree with that view.

Yeah, free stuff is great isn't it.

If you amended the Labour manifesto to reflect the fact that companies, like McD's, who've relocated here because of low CT, will transfer income related to IP to jurisdictions like Luxembourg (which exempts 75% of IP income from CT), and in turn will not raise anywhere near the tax revenues projected - then you'll see that it will have to be paid for in some other way. As will the minimum wage. Etc.

Private sector employees will be worked much harder, with less staff to save costs, especially as their businesses' owner has higher tax themselves. But it's OK, because the public sector will be just fine. And there are robots who can take those jobs, coming real soon...

I accept the public sector are a large chunk of the electorate - and get why they voted for themselves. For everyone else, moderation is perhaps a more sensible route. To fix the national debt, we need to work on the structural deficit first. Giveaways and high tax in a globalised world isn't the way forwards - it's not the 1970's any more.