UK General Election 2017

[Elmetiacos]

If May had turned up to both TV debates and said nothing about fox hunting I reckon they Tories would have gained 10-30 seats. It is by no means clear that support for Corbyn is deep among young people so much as broad.

It's also worth remembering that all these young people voting for him would be mostly too young to remember much of Castro or Chavez, and might not have been born before the IRA ceasefire. Thus far the Tories have treated Corbyn like something of a clown, not taken him seriously.

Now they will be going for him with knives and you can knock a lot of the veneer off an English Socialist by linking him to terrorists and tin-pot South American Dictators.

Nobody's asked him why he supported Castro whilst calling for Pinochet to be arrested yet.

The tabloids endlessly raked over supposed IRA/Sinn Féin links, it didn't do very much good and now that approach is pretty well buggered by the Tories sitting down to coalition talks with the organisers of Ulster Resistance - the ones who stole top secret arms from British factories to sell to gun runners from apartheid South Africa. So far as the average British voter of any age is concerned, all the Northern Irish politicos and paramilitaries are as bad as each other. Chavez is a hate figure only for people who are already on the political right anyway. More to the point, Blairism was successful in the 90s because back then, the capitalist system appeared to be working just fine and everyone was getting richer at (nearly) all levels of society. If you're an 18 year old first time voter now, the crash happened when you were nine. You have no meaningful recollection of those days: to you the system is and always has been broken, capitalism equals austerity and food banks.

[Furunculus]

That could have been dealt with whilst still within the EU though.

Would you be ok if we cancelled Brexit, but the Westminster government tightens up on existing powers as they're entitled to do, as various EU countries do?

Sure.

But no, it wouldn't be cool to cancel Brexit if we sorted [that] problem, because [that] problem has literally no bearing on my vote to leave.

I do not care very much about immigration one way or the other, it isn't a trigger for my inner political animal. ;)

TBH that sovereignty largely tended to be about full control of our borders from my (limited) experience but out of interest for you personally is there a solution which includes the single market, free movement of Labour and sovereignty?

That wasn't what Ashcroft showed.

Yes, a legal undertaking to ensure the separation of the internal market from all of the social and fiscal legislation they will need to make the eurozone work**. In that circumstance, i'd be very happy to remain in EEA/Efta.

My vote to leave was in large part because the 'emergency' of eurozone incompetence was always trying to be fixed at the level of the EU28 as a 'single-market' matter.

If that is not possible, i'd be fine with something hung off the bones of the Ukraine DCFTA.



** Cameron secured this for Britain, in theory, and i'd have been content with that until Belgium insisted it only apply to Britain. In one move shafting the little countries and denying us a coalition to enforce the opt-out from QMV.

[Pannonian]

And McDonnell wants out of the single market, ie. hard Brexit. With the Tories lacking a majority, will Corbyn once more whip his MPs towards a hard Brexit, and will they obey with the prospect of stopping such in combination with Tory rebels?

I didn't vote Labour for the first time in my life, and if McDonnell is indicative of the direction Labour will take, I won't do so again for the foreseeable future.

[Furunculus]

And McDonnell wants out of the single market, ie. hard Brexit.

We still haven't really addressed what a hard brexit actually is:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053750937

[Pannonian]

We still haven't really addressed what a hard brexit actually is:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053750937

I've told you what my definition of a hard Brexit is. Is there any way in which McDonnell's wish does not qualify as a hard Brexit as per my definition?

[Furunculus]

I've told you what my definition of a hard Brexit is. Is there any way in which McDonnell's wish does not qualify as a hard Brexit as per my definition?

i never really got [why] you define not being in the single market and customs union to be a hard brexit.

yes, in the absence of anything else it would be bad economically, possibly bad enough to justify the term "hard brexit".

but why would we or should we presume that we would put nothing else in its place?

[Beskar]

I still wonder why Philippus voted for the Lib Dems. I do have a theory, but it would be disappointing if that theory is true, so I am pondering alternatives.

[Furunculus]

i did too. ;)

[Beskar]

i did too. ;)

I remember you saying years ago about voting Lib dem.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In bed? You mean talking to people who have crazy and unpalatable views?

And yet, like a true right winger, you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye. The tories have numerous mps who come out with racist, hateful, bonkers stuff all the time. But as they are middle class white men you (and the media) don't find them problematic. The tories are in government with the DUP! THE DUP! And you don't engage with that at all? That's nothing?!

Yes, the DUP are probably only one very small cut above Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein are, admittedly, good socialists.

What annoys me id Corbyn claiming he was trying to "promote dialogue" when in reality he was supporting one side specifically.

As to racist things MP's say - Labout has admitted to having a problem with anti-Semitism that extends up to the former London Mayor.

I still wonder why Philippus voted for the Lib Dems. I do have a theory, but it would be disappointing if that theory is true, so I am pondering alternatives.

I'm a Whig, not a Tory.

It's not hard to work out - I enthusiastically supported the Coalition that brought the two sundered halves of the Whigs back together in the figures of Cameron and Clegg. I was willing and fairly happy to support Cameron as a Whig to moderate Tory. Theresa May, however, has shown herself to be something much worse than a Tory - a Thatcherite. Meanwhile, while I don't like Tim Farron he is at least a Liberal. So long as the Liberal wing of the Lib-Dems is in ascendancy I will probably continue to support them. Expect that to change sharpish if the Social Democrats take over.

[Idaho]

Why are the DUP better than sinn fein? Sinn fein at least have a political cause. The DUP are just flat earthers, ex thug drug dealers and anti Catholic bigots.

[Pannonian]

Why are the DUP better than sinn fein? Sinn fein at least have a political cause. The DUP are just flat earthers, ex thug drug dealers and anti Catholic bigots.

The DUP are worth 10 votes. Sinn Fein are worth 0 votes.

[Idaho]

To be fair to May, she did warn of a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathisers.

[Pannonian]

Yes, the DUP are probably only one very small cut above Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein are, admittedly, good socialists.

What annoys me id Corbyn claiming he was trying to "promote dialogue" when in reality he was supporting one side specifically.

As to racist things MP's say - Labout has admitted to having a problem with anti-Semitism that extends up to the former London Mayor.

I'm a Whig, not a Tory.

It's not hard to work out - I enthusiastically supported the Coalition that brought the two sundered halves of the Whigs back together in the figures of Cameron and Clegg. I was willing and fairly happy to support Cameron as a Whig to moderate Tory. Theresa May, however, has shown herself to be something much worse than a Tory - a Thatcherite. Meanwhile, while I don't like Tim Farron he is at least a Liberal. So long as the Liberal wing of the Lib-Dems is in ascendancy I will probably continue to support them. Expect that to change sharpish if the Social Democrats take over.

Where do you place Churchill in your political spectrum? That's Winston Spencer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where do you place Churchill in your political spectrum? That's Winston Spencer.

Well, Chruchill wasn't entirely consistent politically. I suppose he was primarily a Unionist, which is why he flitted between Conservativism and Liberalism. He was also an Imperialist, though, which doesn't really translate into anything today.

[Beskar]

I'm a Whig, not a Tory.

www.whigs.uk

The fancy the symbol they used is a fox made me chuckle.

[Pannonian]

Well, Chruchill wasn't entirely consistent politically. I suppose he was primarily a Unionist, which is why he flitted between Conservativism and Liberalism. He was also an Imperialist, though, which doesn't really translate into anything today.

He and Lloyd George were at the forefront of reformist Liberalism, although Churchill is mainly known as a war leader today.

[Greyblades]

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.

You don't actually believe the EU is immune from being damaged by brexit, do you? Ignoring the blow of losing the second largest of only 5 major net contributors to the EU he UK is a net importer of EU goods, any increase in tariffs and fees on European trade via brexit negotiations breaking down will have an impact on their economies as well as ours.

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.

Pot, kettle, black. Or do you call insults a height of intelligent discourse?

That would explain a lot, though not why you think that intelligent people would be swayed by either obvious fool.

Those numbers are high, but irrelevant, the youth came out at 70% and labour still lost by a wide margin, it didn't win then and it wont win next time, even assuming they could repeat it. As for Canterbury you gain that seats by having a conservative party shoot itself in the face, why else would a 100 year Tory safe seat go red?

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.

It is my personal impression but the relation to empirical evidence is only not presented, it's existence let alone orientation is not exhibited either way in either side of our discourse.

Your assertion that it does not support me is your own personal impression.

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.

1. I asserted that "a party in this situation that cannot achieve a majorty and has no possibility for a majority coalition is utterly incapable of ensuring the passing of any law or changing any policy that the first place position does not agree to without external influence."

If a minority party cannot gain 51% in a vote it's agenda will be stymied in any form of democracy that does not possess a filibuster rule. If a minority party cannot gain a coalition that raises their vote share to 51% they are incapable of assuming the status of government. When both happens a party is rendered ineffective.

Your assertion that "The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities." is entirely addressed by my statement that it "requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition."

Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of others, it has no independent avenue of action.

2. No I didnt.

3. No I didnt.

I asserted that a bad leader, or more specifically this bad leader, negatively affects a party's ability to achieve either 51% necessary to wield effective power.

[Montmorency]

1. I asserted that "a party in this situation that cannot achieve a majorty and has no possibility for a majority coalition is utterly incapable of ensuring the passing of any law or changing any policy that the first place position does not agree to without external influence."

If a minority party cannot gain 51% in a vote it's agenda will be stymied in any form of democracy that does not possess a filibuster rule. If a minority party cannot gain a coalition that raises their vote share to 51% they are incapable of assuming the status of government. When both happens a party is rendered ineffective.

Your assertion that "The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities." is entirely addressed by my statement that it "requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition."

Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of everyone else, it has no independent avenue of action.

You conceive of political power only in terms of ability to pass a given piece of legislation through a legislature in the near-term, which misunderstands power in democracies. The existence and size of opposition parties limits the actions the governing Party can take, because this isn't about what someone "lets" anyone else have or do. Parliament is not about turn-taking. Parliament is a political institution dependent on the electorate and not a machine for churning out legislature that one actor can hold and wield in denial of others. Every action must run in some way through the approval and vetting of minority parties, to the extent that the less minority support a course of action or legislation has, the more of its power the majority or governing group must expend to secure it - and governments do not have unlimited quantities of this power, either in sheer extent or in some duration of time. Hence, priorities and expedience, i.e. politics.

When you note something like

Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of everyone else

you have to grasp that this is the basis for your political system, it's the expectation and what all the participants are organized about. If it were not the case, all governments would translate to one-party states.

2. No I didnt.

3. No I didnt.

I asserted that a bad leader, or more specifically this bad leader, negatively affects a party's ability to achieve either necessary 51% to achieve effective power.

You took it that Corbyn's bad leadership is directly responsible for Labor's lack of a majority in this election. Corbyn could well be a bad leader, or even an acceptable but otherwise inconvenient leader, but you didn't have license to associate leadership from Corbyn, poor or otherwise, with overall election results. At least some of the issue is related to a fundamental misunderstanding, a zero-sum one, of how democracies work, which led you to perceive the election outcome for Labor as a bad one in the first place. What do you make of the proposition that it is categorically impossible for a party like the Liberal Democrats to not have bad leadership?

[Beskar]

You will lot will love this, I did.

Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.

Source

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You will lot will love this, I did.

Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.

Source

No, according to your source they're sending their MP's to Parliament to register for Office space, as they always do.

Still not taking their seats, still depriving the Irish people of a voice in Parliament.

[Beskar]

No, according to your source they're sending their MP's to Parliament to register for Office space, as they always do.

Still not taking their seats, still depriving the Irish people of a voice in Parliament.

UPDATED: 17:53, Tue, Jun 13, 2017

It changed.

Disappointing as the original was definitely more interesting political drama wise.

[Furunculus]

You will lot will love this, I did.

Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.

Source

i would have loved it, because it meant we would have broken them on the wheel of british democracy.

but, ah well! next time. ;)

[Pannonian]

FWIW, the youth vote had an unusually heavy turnout this election, but it was still under 60%. The top age group was nearly 80%. And the latter outnumbers the 18-24ers, even disregarding turnout.

[LittleGrizzly]

I didn't think there was an official way to know, secret ballot and the question not being asked at exit polls, rather they try to estimate it?

The figure I heard was 72% though.

[Beskar]

I didn't think there was an official way to know, secret ballot and the question not being asked at exit polls, rather they try to estimate it?

The figure I heard was 72% though.

I heard 72% as well.

Well, they are able to tell who voted because you confirm you are voting whether in poll station and they tick you off or via postal vote confirming with signature.

It is arguably possible you can find out who voted for what as the voting paper has a number which corresponds with you if you have access to the list which says who has what number.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One Cambridge academic was apparently batting the 72% figure around, from talking to SU presidents and others. He hasn't shared his workings yet.

It actually should be easy to work out at polling stations note the voter registration numbers - you should be able to track that back to individuals who register with their NI number, which will give you their age.

[Pannonian]

The 57/59% 18-24 figure is from yougov. IIRC Labour supporters have been talking up their polling since the election, so take their credibility on one with the other if you wish.

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH yougov estimating it at 57/59% might explain why they were a bit out on their predictions compared to results, as opposed to the Cambridge academic, Labour supporter?, who I guess went of the results, although how he came to that figure is a good question....

[Pannonian]

TBH yougov estimating it at 57/59% might explain why they were a bit out on their predictions compared to results, as opposed to the Cambridge academic, Labour supporter?, who I guess went of the results, although how he came to that figure is a good question....

Weren't yougov the ones who polled a late Labour surge and a hung parliament?