UK General Election 2017

[Montmorency]

Greyblades, you seem to forget that Labor MPs carry votes, and the government cannot run solely on 318+10 votes: hence politics.

You also give a strange attribution to nebulous "leadership" as a factor in gaining specific seats, as opposed to external factors such as local characteristics and economics, and your consequent assumption that changes in "leadership" can somehow shift seats by the dozen absent context is fantasy.

[Idaho]

Ok. The reasons why this loss feels like a victory:

- May declared the election with a 20+ poll lead
- she had a personal approval rating 3 times Corbyn
- she expressly stated that losing even 6 seats would be a failure
- she had a press almost entirely on her side
- she had the BBC political reporting team staffed with tory Party members
- Corbyn was repeatedly declared unelectable. Predictions of a landslide to the tories were routine on all sides
- the blairite right and the political commentators all agreed that you had to be a neoliberal to stand a chance. Social democracy was dead as a concept.
- it was stated that Labour had long since lost the south and Scotland and was now losing the north.
- we were promised that this was the last hopeless stand for the Labour left. The blairites backed off to let Corbyn own the defeat. None of the experienced labour mps would serve so he had to run with a gaggle of oddities and no marks.

That is were we started. And were did we end up?

- the tories lost their majority
- May's credibility is in tatters. 5 years? She might not even give it 5 days!
- 72% of the youth vote turned out. No one in British politics has achieved close to that before.
- Corbyn got the highest share of the vote for a Labour leader in modern times.
- labour picked up seats in Canterbury ffs! Canterbury went red!
- social democracy has been proven to be electorally viable.
- honest politics and not spin and soundbites attracted voters

Did labour win? No - but if you had offered me even half of the above any time in the last 40 years, I'd have bitten your hand off!

I am delighted

Oh and did I mention that we get to see some more tory collapse and civil war?

[Beskar]

The greeks lost thermopylae.

Exactly, but the greeks punched far above their weight as you are aware, thus the myth and legend of 300 Spartans.

To Corbyn and his supporters, they turned an impossible victory, as Furunculus mentioned about putting money on a 375-399 landslide victory for the Conversatives, into a bloody nosed Pyrrhic victory for the Conservatives resulting in a hung parliament.

In this mindset, they won't be uprooted, Corbyn has shown that he is "electable" by giving a challenge to all those who said Labour were completely out for the count. Only way for Corbyn to be ousted is if Labour managed to get a good candidate into parliament in this election, which will cause his supporters to side with them over him.

Edit: See Idaho's post above this one as an example of this in action.

[Greyblades]

Greyblades, you seem to forget that Labor MPs carry votes, and the government cannot run solely on 318+10 votes: hence politics.

Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.

You also give a strange attribution to nebulous "leadership" as a factor in gaining specific seats, as opposed to external factors such as local characteristics and economics, and your consequent assumption that changes in "leadership" can somehow shift seats by the dozen absent context is fantasy.

What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.

Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.

Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and his choice in lieutenants, and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.

He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.

[Elmetiacos]

@Elmetiacos I do not think it is a good idea to abandon the possibility of going with a hard brexit, to desire it is not wise but to rule out the option is to surrender all the power in the negociations with the EU.

Parties promising no hard Brexit are basically saying Junker can offer us as shit a deal as he could desire, refuse to compromise in any way and we cannot say no.

You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.

[Greyblades]

And you think the EU aren't viewing it like that?

Even ignoring that mentality and treating this like a business negotiation you must be willing to acknowledge that the other guy is fully willing to profit at your expense if you let him and your primary leverage is the ability to walk away from the table and deny him any profit.

If you tie yourself to the table he has little reason to not exploit you to the fullest.

[LittleGrizzly]

You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.

It is representative of the different ideologies of the parties...

Corbyn would look to work with the EU to secure the best deal

May would look to fight the EU tooth and nail to secure the best deal

The former sounds much more like a strategy for success.

[Fragony]

You're falling into the trap of viewing the negotiations as if they were peace talks between two opposing blocs who are trying to resolve a dispute starting from opposing positions.

I see a useless overhead that is scared about people finding out it's of no use at all, and claws at eyeballs if it's noticed

[Elmetiacos]

And you think the EU aren't viewing it like that?

Even ignoring that mentality and treating this like a business negotiation you must be willing to acknowledge that the other guy is fully willing to profit at your expense if you let him and your primary leverage is the ability to walk away from the table and deny him any profit.

If you tie yourself to the table he has little reason to not exploit you to the fullest.

That mentality is not applicable to either side except possibly regarding the "divorce bill" which is really wrangling over what spending commitments the UK had already commited to. In any event, a hard Brexit isn't a threat, it's more like someone threatening to blow off their own foot with a shotgun while warning that it will wake up the baby in the next room.

[Idaho]

Trump, brexit, May. It's amazing how one person can be so consistently right, yet so consistently wrong.

[Idaho]

Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.

What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.

Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.

Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and his choice in lieutenants, and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.

He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.

You are such a fool, I have no idea why I debating with you. Perhaps only so you don't sway the thoughts of more intelligent people.

The idea that Labour just showed up and were gifted the election is demonstrable nonsense. How can you get 72% of the youth vote to show up when traditionally only 20%ish normally vote if you are just the default "other option" of people who were going to vote anyway. How can you win Canterbury and run Hastings and Kensington to the wire if you are just attracting an apathetic fringe of protest votes from Tories. Total nonsense and as ever you humiliate yourself by parading your ignorance and stupidity.

[Fragony]

That mentality is not applicable to either side except possibly regarding the "divorce bill" which is really wrangling over what spending commitments the UK had already commited to. In any event, a hard Brexit isn't a threat, it's more like someone threatening to blow off their own foot with a shotgun while warning that it will wake up the baby in the next room.

Look at what was done to Greece, that is worse than accidently shooting yourself, it's simply criminal. Greece was used as a proxy to save German banks because it couldn't be done directly and Greece can never afford the 'loans' that went directly back. Fuck the eu

[Montmorency]

Labour MP's carry votes but for thier votes to mean anything they require a majority and that requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition. They are vastly more vulnerable to sabotage than the Tories are.

Yet that's wrong. In parliamentary government, large minorities have considerable policy and legislative influence - the larger, the more so. Even huge majorities do not often have the power to just act however they may please, and certainly not without the threat of imminently losing their majorites. This is without even getting into the 1/3-1/2 of post-war European governments that have been led by technical minorities, since this is largely a non-Anglo phenomenon, and Anglo legislatures tend to cluster operating majorities within 50-60% of seats. Notably however, minority government is the outcome of Conservatives with informal DUP support today.

The point is that power in politics is incremental and not all-or-nothing. This also means that the winset over the status quo increases the larger the differences between players are. The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities.

What is strange is your dismissal of the leadership's role in party performance.

Corbyn is a lame duck with a sordid past, his front bench is a motley crew of incompetence sprinkled by the occasional bigot and as has been established Corbyn rules the roost and controls the campaign.
His leadership resulted in a heavily flawed campaign; laying out a financially ruinous manifesto filled with obviously impossible promises, allowing imbeciles like abbot run thier mouths in public, refusing to even lie about his unwillingness to use nukes for appearances sake.
With Corbyn's strategic brilliance his party was destined for irrelevance were it not from May's intervention.

Every reason people ever believed Labour was destined to be crushed can be traced back to corbyn and every reason he wasn't can be traced to the actions of, or comparison to, his opponent.

He didnt succeed on his merits, he was buoyed by May's failure and a rush for "anyone else". Any assertion otherwise is the fantasy here.

This is your personal impression of Corbyn and May, and the relation to empirical evidence is not evident. The case that May's performance alone affected public mood to such a degree that anyone other than Corbyn would have turned around a comfortable majority, or vice-versa for a Conservative majority, is on its face an attempt to invent a dramatic narrative. I suspect it is ungrounded in British history and modern events beyond the existence of individuals named Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.

You asserted that:

1. Only one result at a point in time has any meaning (i.e. Labor formal majority).
2. A "good" leader is able to achieve this regardless of context.
3. A leader is "bad" so long as this threshold is not met.

These are all wrong. The real test is whether and how Labour can expand its role in Parliament and local governments on the way to future elections.

[Pannonian]

I see a useless overhead that is scared about people finding out it's of no use at all, and claws at eyeballs if it's noticed

I see a Dutch bloke pontificating about a British issue.

[Pannonian]

Yet that's wrong. In parliamentary government, large minorities have considerable policy and legislative influence - the larger, the more so. Even huge majorities do not often have the power to just act however they may please, and certainly not without the threat of imminently losing their majorites. This is without even getting into the 1/3-1/2 of post-war European governments that have been led by technical minorities, since this is largely a non-Anglo phenomenon, and Anglo legislatures tend to cluster operating majorities within 50-60% of seats. Notably however, minority government is the outcome of Conservatives with informal DUP support today.

The point is that power in politics is incremental and not all-or-nothing. This also means that the winset over the status quo increases the larger the differences between players are. The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities.

This is your personal impression of Corbyn and May, and the relation to empirical evidence is not evident. The case that May's performance alone affected public mood to such a degree that anyone other than Corbyn would have turned around a comfortable majority, or vice-versa for a Conservative majority, is on its face an attempt to invent a dramatic narrative. I suspect it is ungrounded in British history and modern events beyond the existence of individuals named Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May.

You asserted that:

1. Only one result at a point in time has any meaning (i.e. Labor formal majority).
2. A "good" leader is able to achieve this regardless of context.
3. A leader is "bad" so long as this threshold is not met.

These are all wrong. The real test is whether and how Labour can expand its role in Parliament and local governments on the way to future elections.

May has set herself a threshold (a stronger mandate to back her in EU talks) and the electorate has moved in the other direction. Brexit talks and the attempt to gain a stronger electoral mandate was the reason May gave for putting aside the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and call a general election.

[Fragony]

I see a Dutch bloke pontificating about a British issue.

Your issues are also our issues but the Netherlands is just not as influential as the UK, we will always really agree with the UK but in the end always obey to others simply because we have no other option. A hard brexit is of the map I guess I hope the UK will continue being
really annoying. It's a very big thing if the UK leaves, for the twisted ideological side eurocrats are psychopats

[Pannonian]

Your issues are also our issues but the Netherlands is just not as influential as the UK, we will always really agree with the UK but in the end always obey to others simply because we have no other option. A hard brexit is of the map I guess I hope the UK will continue being
really annoying. It's a very big thing if the UK leaves, for the twisted ideological side

You can observe, but it's none of your business. Having to live through its reality, I find it intensely irritating to read your insistences that the pain will all be worth it. I despised the neolibs who told the Russians that in the 90s whilst living in New York or London, and I retain the same opinion about their modern day equivalents.

[Furunculus]

I put £20 on the tories getting 375-399 seats.
My belief is that it will be at the low end of that range (375-380).

Corbyn is a principled and decent man, much to admire in many ways. He just wants a Britain that is opposite to my own beliefs.
How principled and decent he is, is frankly irrelevant as far as my vote is concerned.

Rofl!

Continuing a long and honourable tradition of being wrong.:D

[Furunculus]

This is how institutional cultures rot from the inside.

You don't get to quote the second line without the context of the first.

[Fragony]

You can observe, but it's none of your business. Having to live through its reality, I find it intensely irritating to read your insistences that the pain will all be worth it. I despised the neolibs who told the Russians that in the 90s whilst living in New York or London, and I retain the same opinion about their modern day equivalents.

I know it irritates you. But in general the Dutch like the English more than they like the EU, I am no different there. What I would like to see is the UK and the Netherlands teaming up.

[Furunculus]

UKIP were never a main party except in the media, who were obsessed with them. They are just fringe Tories.

Not really true now is it? Ukip was a gateway drug to get the working class in labour heartlands to vote tory for the first time since Thatcher.

[Beskar]

Continuing a long and honourable tradition of being wrong.:D

*puts this in signature*

[Furunculus]

My lib vote failed to stop the crazy nats. :(

Dup will be sufficient to get brexit underway, clearing of the non contentious items such as foriegn nationals.

But nothing contentious will be negotiated before the german elections (and the french for that matter).
No one is handing those two heads of state a fait acccompli from a lame duck president.
Anyone who thinks this won't be decided by the europoen council is daft.

For this reason, there is no real brexit bar to another election, merely domestic tolerance.

[Pannonian]

My lib vote failed to stop the crazy nats. :(

Dup will be sufficient to get brexit underway, clearing of the non contentious items such as foriegn nationals.

But nothing contentious will be negotiated before the german elections (and the french for that matter).
No one is handing those two heads of state a fait acccompli from a lame duck president.
Anyone who thinks this won't be decided by the europoen council is daft.

For this reason, there is no real brexit bar to another election, merely domestic tolerance.

You reckon Ken Clarke won't be able to get another few Tories to cross the floor with him on Brexit?

[Furunculus]

You reckon Ken Clarke won't be able to get another few Tories to cross the floor with him on Brexit?

are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.

[Pannonian]

are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.

The DUP want the current economic status of Northern Ireland to continue, with Northern Ireland having the same status as the rUK. So whatever agreements exist between Northern Ireland and Ireland aka the EU, the rUK will share.

[Furunculus]

The DUP want the current economic status of Northern Ireland to continue, with Northern Ireland having the same status as the rUK. So whatever agreements exist between Northern Ireland and Ireland aka the EU, the rUK will share.

#fakenews

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/...tions-answers/

[Pannonian]

With Sinn Fein not voting in Westminster, that leaves 643 seats, or 322 needed for a majority. The Tories currently have 318, or 319 if they hold Kensington. Add the DUP, and they're up to 329. 4 rebels, of which Ken Clarke can be guaranteed to be one, and the Tories no longer have a majority vote.

[Fragony]

are you suggesting that brexit somehow stops?
it is the [only] issue the next gov't [must] deal with.

Well they do that. We had it two times. The referendum for a EU-constitution was sabotaged, a major no was neglected after a minorchange. Same with the rediculous associaton-treayty with Ukrainian criminals, they just laid on an extra empty paper and it was not the same thing we voted against anymore.

[Pannonian]

#fakenews

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/...tions-answers/

That largely confirms what I've said, in more detail, and perhaps with more emphasis. The DUP may back lesser political ties with the EU, but they're big on the economic ties. Which means no hard Brexit, and an end to the grandstanding nonsense May was indulging in.