General Election 2017 Mega Thread

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:23 pm

Spiral wrote:if you stick with us you could learn something today.

It seems we can all learn something today.
Cheers Paul Waine

Claretnick · Post by **Claretnick** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:25 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Spiral, I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to it than that. Economics 101 is an introduction to supply and demand curves. Inflation comes in much further in the course. Similarly, savings rations and much, much more.

In 1973 OPEC kicked off an inflationary cycle when they unilaterally hiked the oil price (I'm not making any moral judgement, it maybe that their assertion of their right to the price of crude oil was a reasonable response to the price controlling behaviours of the "seven sisters" oil majors at that time). The inflationary problem became much worse (in the UK) when the trade unions responded by demanding pay rises to compensate for the increased costs their members were facing - oil prices, of course, impact on almost all consumer purchases. Things got worse, James Callaghan introduced prices and wages controls, but this didn't solve the problem. Unemployment rose, IMF was required to "bail out" UK economy. All those who weren't members of unions lost out - as they didn't get the pay rises - perhaps they were pensioners or unemployed or other non-wage earners.

The deflationary spiral that has impacted Japan is from spending being cut back, because the population believes that what they want to buy will be cheaper if they wait and buy it later.

The German Weimar republic suffered from enormous hyper-inflation - and these stressed contributed to the rise of Hitler and all the horrors that followed. So, Germany today is always very careful to maintain economic discipline.

As for the employer, externally driven cost increases can impact negatively are on their business and they may not be able to increase prices and recover these cost increases from their customers. The employer may not, therefore, have the ability to increase the wages of their workforce, or the consequences of paying higher wages also means that they must cut the number of employees to pay for these increases.

The UK had an aristocracy and "the bourgeois" in the nineteenth century when Marx was writing. They aren't relevant today - they aren't the people who run firms and employ people.

Sorry to nitpick Paul as I do find your posts interesting and informative. James Callaghan did not introduce the statutory controls of prices and incomes. This policy was introduced by the Edward Heath Conservative Government in 1972 by his Chancellor, Tony Barber, just about the time his Government was taking the country into the EEC. Not all of this country's economic ills and woes can be laid at the door of the Labour party.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obitu ... 20040.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... h-1970.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Callaghan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:25 pm

claretandy wrote:Rumours going round twitter that "the yoof" managed to vote twice, in their home town and at university.

No, surely no one would do that? I'm sure everyone knows it is against the rules....?

However, with the postal/absent voter rules you don't need the expense of travel between the two constituencies.

I wonder whether anyone is thinking of taking a look at Kensington - where the majority is only 20.

I doubt there is any way to identify this type of situation, it's only a name on the electoral roll. Or, is there a requirement to verify the name with passport number or NI number or NHS number I think it may be possible to cross-reference some of these numbers on government databases these days.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:31 pm

Paul Waine wrote:My apologies, Spiral. I thought (some of) the posters on this thread were looking for facts. Election is over for June-2017. No-one won, is perhaps a fair conclusion. (Except the United Kingdom with the quietening of the cries for IndyRef2).

So a discussion about the NWM, introduced in 1999, and its macroeconomic consequences, apparently required input regarding the 1973 oil crisis, an external macroeconomic factor, and a tenuous link by yourself to the Unions of the '70's, because other posters were looking for "facts"?

Your editorial proclivity is in pursuit of watered-down propaganda. You've been called out on this in the past.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:33 pm

Damo wrote:It seems we can all learn something today.
Cheers Paul Waine

I'm glad you've found a champion, Damo. I'm quite happy fighting my own fights.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:46 pm

Rumours going round twitter that "the yoof" managed to vote twice, in their home town and at university.

In the last twenty four hours, those who want a hard brexit will believe anything that keeps them together.

I know you don't want to hear this, but guess what, its the will of the people that we don't blow a huge hole in our economy for blue passports.

The Will of the people.

What are you lot, undemocratic all of a sudden or something?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:49 pm

Claretnick wrote:Sorry to nitpick Paul as I do find your posts interesting and informative. James Callaghan did not introduce the statutory controls of prices and incomes. This policy was introduced by the Edward Heath Conservative Government in 1972 by his Chancellor, Tony Barber, just about the time his Government was taking the country into the EEC. Not all of this country's economic ills and woes can be laid at the door of the Labour party.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obitu ... 20040.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... h-1970.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Callaghan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Claretnick, thanks for your comments - nitpicking isn't a problem.

I didn't intend to give the impression that the 1970s events "can be laid at the door of Labour." Yes, there were a large number of challenges from the TUC/trade unions (remember Barbara Castle's "In place of strife" 1967/8, from memory). But, the big, very significant, external event was OPEC raising the crude oil price in 1973. I do remember Heath and Barber, I thought they only attempted price control - but I wasn't working then, so I may have missed their income/wage control policies. (I do remember that I got a petrol rationing card when I got my first car in summer-1974 - though rationing wasn't implemented). I started work in September 1975. I have memory of wage control being introduced - or maybe it was just amended in 1976 or maybe 1977 (I think Harold Wilson had retired before this change was made). It's a long, long time ago, if I scratch my head hard enough I've a recollection of something like £6/week being the maximum permitted wage increase - and nothing if you were earning more than £7,500 per annum. (A pound was a pound in those days - and yes a two bed terraced house in Manchester could be bought for less than £15,000 - but you also needed to have saved £10,000 in the building society before they would consider you for a mortgage! Banks didn't do mortgages until 1980/81).

I'll have a read of your links and re-fresh my memories a little.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:56 pm

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:03 pm

Think its more to do with a lack of understanding of what the social media effects are to be honest.

I'm not a fan of some parts of Momentum, but the face to face talking to people if you have enough to do it makes a huge difference.

What is coming through loud and clear from this election is that

-if you don't engage, then you lose.
-Tactical voting appeared to help Labour a lot more than anybody else (which leads to the suspicion that people who voted Lab didn't tactically vote as much as Lib Dems did)
- JC is actually pretty good at campaigning, while Theresa May is appalling
- UKIP are finished, as Brexit is coming.

Unless the tories learn, then they might really struggle next one, especially as the UKIP vote switching to the Tories isn't enough of a factor to risk alienating the rest of the electorate.

Claretnick · Post by **Claretnick** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:06 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Claretnick, thanks for your comments - nitpicking isn't a problem.

I didn't intend to give the impression that the 1970s events "can be laid at the door of Labour." Yes, there were a large number of challenges from the TUC/trade unions (remember Barbara Castle's "In place of strife" 1967/8, from memory). But, the big, very significant, external event was OPEC raising the crude oil price in 1973. I do remember Heath and Barber, I thought they only attempted price control - but I wasn't working then, so I may have missed their income/wage control policies. (I do remember that I got a petrol rationing card when I got my first car in summer-1974 - though rationing wasn't implemented). I started work in September 1975. I have memory of wage control being introduced - or maybe it was just amended in 1976 or maybe 1977 (I think Harold Wilson had retired before this change was made). It's a long, long time ago, if I scratch my head hard enough I've a recollection of something like £6/week being the maximum permitted wage increase - and nothing if you were earning more than £7,500 per annum. (A pound was a pound in those days - and yes a two bed terraced house in Manchester could be bought for less than £15,000 - but you also needed to have saved £10,000 in the building society before they would consider you for a mortgage! Banks didn't do mortgages until 1980/81).

I'll have a read of your links and re-fresh my memories a little.

Yeah I started work in September 1975, where has the time gone. I am no expert on these things but I just thought that Callaghan was not PM until after Wilson resigned. It was the OPEC oil price rise that put an end to the heating in the Cricket Field stand as well as bringing petrol rationing etc.
The internet is a great source of information, albeit a consumer of time, such as this exchange in the Commons that Barber had about prices and income in 1972, UTC.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... 307_HOC_86" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:06 pm

Spiral wrote:I'm glad you've found a champion, Damo. I'm quite happy fighting my own fights.

I've been at a wedding all day.
Not had the time for sucking egg lessons

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:17 pm

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:18 pm

This might be going off on a bit of a tangent but regarding big-data and information flow, has anyone on here played Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty on PS2/Xbox? Regards information management and manipulation, I think Hideo Kojima might have created a contemporary version of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, way back in 2001.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:19 pm

I wouldn't worry about it to be honest. If Andy is really worried about fake news then he's going to have a hell of a shock when he starts double checking stuff.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:19 pm

Spiral wrote:So a discussion about the NWM, introduced in 1999, and its macroeconomic consequences, apparently required input regarding the 1973 oil crisis, an external macroeconomic factor, and a tenuous link by yourself to the Unions of the '70's, because other posters were looking for "facts"?

Your editorial proclivity is in pursuit of watered-down propaganda. You've been called out on this in the past.

I was picking up on the "economics 101" claim - in my text book we learn about inflation a lot later.

Yes, I then commented on your reference to Marx. I studied Marx. I didn't understand Marx until I understood that his analysis is a political analysis - and does not a "scientific" analysis of economics.

And, I referenced the 1970s because that is when OPEC hiked the oil prices - and the world (not just the UK) didn't know how to respond and so responded badly and, in economic terms, responded harmfully to their own economies. (Prices were hiked again in 1979 following Iranian revolution).

Yes, someone "called me out." I guess because I was arguing something where they had a different view. No worries.
I have a view - which may be incorrect, because I don't know all the other posters - that I'm older than some (though not all) who post on the "politics" threads. I get a sense that the views of some posters reflect their age - and I don't mean this in a negative sense - and that they haven't experienced life in the periods I (and others on here) have experienced life. (I also know that I've not got detailed knowledge of things that happened before I was born). One of my shortcomings, if I can call it that, is that although a poster might have stated there age, or something that reveals their age on one thread, I am most likely to have forgotten it when I read the same persons post on another thread.

So, yes, I may cross-reference or compare/contrast events of today with events that I experienced earlier in my life.

What is the old saw, those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it?

EDIT: Just learnt that the someone "who called me out" has now posted he's a member of Momentum. Oh well - not surprised he disagreed with what I was posting.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:51 pm

Splendid. I also have knowledge of things that happened before I was born. You apparently don't hold a monopoly on historical nuance! Looks like we share some sort of common ground, or whatever.

But just to be clear, nobody is debating the fundamental premise of my argument for NMW increase that wage-suppression strangles the macro economy, right? Plenty of posts since I made that point, but not one single counter argument?

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:00 am

the tory press, with their spurious journalists are now preparing the way for Boris Johnson to take up the leadership.
Papers like the Sun, who employ studious and quite knowledgable scribes, play it both ways, they appease the thick and give them prizes and easy to read **** about celebs , whilst the aim is to soften them up as a gullible mass in order to get them to vote their way, Liverpool got it right, blocking the sale of this rag. It is serious though, we should recognise the weakening of the tabloids, but be wary of their influence in other areas.
Tories doing deals with tossers like the DUP, is the thin end of the wedge. Could destabalise Ireland in the North. the whole conservative ethos stinks to high heaven.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:01 am

Spiral wrote:Splendid. I also have knowledge of things that happened before I was born. You apparently don't hold a monopoly on historical nuance! Looks like we share some sort of common ground, or whatever.

But just to be clear, nobody is debating the fundamental premise of my argument for NMW increase that wage-suppression strangles the macro economy, right? Plenty of posts since I made that point, but not one single counter argument?

Hi Spiral, whatever unites us is more important than whatever divides us.

I've got to admit, I've not read all today's part of this thread. I'll have to scan back further to read where you first posted and see if I'm missing something in my response. But, that will have to wait another time.

Take care.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:21 am

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:23 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, just our of curiosity, do you find your behaviours, as you describe above, achieves the outcome(s) you intend with respect to the person(s) you address in that way?

Yes, because my message isn't really for them, but my frustrations are. I only curse at people who have shown a persistent ability to be resistant to new information and I no longer attempt to improve their information. I merely use replies to such idiots as a means to keep other people who happen to also read it from believing his or her complete bullshit by leaving it unchallenged.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:29 am

claretandy wrote:The momentum lot got pulled up for a fake news advert saying the NHS was being privatized on social media.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3770085/d ... eresa-may/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly why we need Facebook to have the ability to fact check these things and remove lies. Remember what happened when that was proposed after the US election? The right wing threw a massive tantrum calling it censorship of their message.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:37 am

If it be your will wrote:(I actually thought Spiral was referring to aggi!)

To be honest I can't quite remember who it was. I just remember PW tying himself in knots before eventually being sussed as a political fanatic.

That said, he seems like a fairly sound bloke. I'd have a pint with him. I'd disagree with everything he says, but he seems amiable enough that, unlike quite a few on here, I probably wouldn't want to smack him in the face.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:39 am

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:25 am

The US pulling out of the Bretton Wood currency agreement was what ultimately did for us all in the early 70s. The oil price rise was a consequence of that.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:41 am

In case anyone's interested Survation, whose final poll before the election had the Tories up by 1 point (compared to a Tory 3 point popular vote win) have done a post-election survey and they now have Labour ahead of the Conservatives by 6 points.40.4 over 34.5

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:51 am

Damo wrote:I've been at a wedding all day.
Not had the time for sucking egg lessons

I assume SocialFunction.exe didn't change your opinion on the virtue of NMW? You still a grateful serf? Stockholm syndrome, much?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:43 am

I hear that the foxes are getting together to take up Tory hunting!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:41 am

It was an election called on Brexit, about giving TM a bigger majority to negotiate a tougher Brexit. She lost 30+ seats.

The main hard Brexit party got absolutely crushed.

We can argue on here till the cows come home, but the main result of all this (apart from creationists in the government!) is that "No deal" is completely off the table.

Which is a good thing.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:51 am

seems like Labour were going to do a deal with the nasty, homophobic, DUP in 2010 according to Lord Adonis.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:It was an election called on Brexit, about giving TM a bigger majority to negotiate a tougher Brexit. She lost 30+ seats.

The main hard Brexit party got absolutely crushed.

We can argue on here till the cows come home, but the main result of all this (apart from creationists in the government!) is that "No deal" is completely off the table.

Which is a good thing.

It was a terrible campaign, she has to go, there was no need for the social care, school dinners and winter fuel allowance changes, if she would have just stuck to brexit she would have won.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:54 am

claretandy wrote:seems like Labour were going to do a deal with the nasty, homophobic, DUP in 2010 according to Lord Adonis.

Why are you always so full of ****? Nothing about that quote says Labour were going to do a deal.

You are absolutely ******* desperate and are one of the most embarrassing liars we have on this forum.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:54 am

What a bloody shambles. Incompetence doesn't even begin to cut it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -rebellion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:57 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:What a bloody shambles. Incompetence doesn't even begin to cut it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -rebellion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's so much like we're watching The Thick of It that Armando Iannucci probably has a case against them for copyright infringement.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:59 am

claretandy wrote:if she would have just stuck to brexit she would have won.

In Southern areas where there were plenty of people who wanted to remain there was a large swing to Labour. The Conservatives have to find a way to convince the 48% who voted to remain, to vote for them.

No easy task.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:10 am

This whole election campaign especially the Tory side has been like watching an episode of The Thick of It.

Interesting stats about the youth vote this time. One disgruntled caller on radio 5 over the weekend complained the youth were responsible for a hung parliament as they are''too easily led' and need things 'explaining to them more' before they vote.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:12 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:This whole election campaign especially the Tory side has been like watching an episode of The Thick of It.

Interesting stats about the youth vote this time. One disgruntled caller on radio 5 over the weekend complained the youth were responsible for a hung parliament as they are''too easily led' and need things 'explaining to them more' before they vote.

And yet the current youth a probably the most informed generation and the most resistant to propaganda and vitriol spread in newspapers largely because they don't read them.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:13 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:This whole election campaign especially the Tory side has been like watching an episode of The Thick of It.

Interesting stats about the youth vote this time. One disgruntled caller on radio 5 over the weekend complained the youth were responsible for a hung parliament as they are''too easily led' and need things 'explaining to them more' before they vote.

Forget the 48% who voted remain (including many middle-aged and older voters) at your peril.

Until they get them onside it's irrelevant how younger people voted.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:26 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Why are you always so full of ****? Nothing about that quote says Labour were going to do a deal.

You are absolutely ******* desperate and are one of the most embarrassing liars we have on this forum.

More evidence turtles heed/claretandjew/soapytitwank

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... abour.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:28 am

Spijed wrote:In Southern areas where there were plenty of people who wanted to remain there was a large swing to Labour. The Conservatives have to find a way to convince the 48% who voted to remain, to vote for them.

No easy task.

Huge swathes of the midlands and north were meant to turn blue, they didn't, UKIP went back to Labour in enough numbers to save the labour seats.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:32 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:What a bloody shambles. Incompetence doesn't even begin to cut it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -rebellion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A fine example of the negotiating powers that are going to get us 'the best deal for Britain'.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:37 am

claretandy wrote:More evidence turtles heed/claretandjew/soapytitwank

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... abour.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This post is fine. But don't quote something and then claim it says something that it clearly doesn't say. All you do in doing so is scream "i'm a lying moron".

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:04 am

Ian Paisley MP just tweeted that Ed Miliband wanted to do a deal with the DUP in 2015

https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status ... 6729405440" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:12 am

claretandy wrote:Ian Paisley MP just tweeted that Ed Miliband wanted to do a deal with the DUP in 2015

https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status ... 6729405440" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The point is that many were saying that Jeremy Corbyn is/was a terrorist sympathiser and here we are, a government that is willing to go into power with a party that still has the support of terrorist organisations.

Isn't this now pure hypocrisy from the government and newspapers who portrayed Corbyn as a friend of terrorists?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:21 am

John Mcdonnall just told peston we will be leaving the single market

https://twitter.com/pestononsunday/stat ... 3022946304" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:26 am

Who do you think you're deluding? He literally said Labour will be working for "access to the single-market on a tariff-free basis". How is that not a soft Brexit? Watch the ******* video, it's not even a minute long.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:31 am

soft brexit is staying in the single market, staying in the customs union, ECJ jurisdiction.

Do keep up turtles heed.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:32 am

Spijed wrote:The point is that many were saying that Jeremy Corbyn is/was a terrorist sympathiser and here we are, a government that is willing to go into power with a party that still has the support of terrorist organisations.

Isn't this now pure hypocrisy from the government and newspapers who portrayed Corbyn as a friend of terrorists?

claretandy isn't upset by his hypocrisy. I think when it comes to right-wing hypocrisy the rest of us aren't going to get anywhere trying to convince them not to be hypocrites. It's the only way they can get a gig in government nowadays. The young can see through their bullshit though. We know how to use the internet to fact check things so the more bullshit these people throw up the more examples young people have to call on when finding reasons not to vote for right-wing parties and policies in the future.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:32 am

claretandy wrote:It was a terrible campaign, she has to go, there was no need for the social care, school dinners and winter fuel allowance changes, if she would have just stuck to brexit she would have won.

have you seen the surveys saying that large numbers of Tories turned to Labour - despite not agreeing with Corbyn, because they couldn't support May asking for a mandate for a hard brexit.
That is the message for the Tories.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:34 am

claretandy wrote:soft brexit is staying in the single market, staying in the customs union, ECJ jurisdiction.

Do keep up turtles heed.

No, that's staying in the EU. Norway has access to the single-market and a Norway-type agreement would be a soft Brexit. That's what most people want now and that's the only kind of Brexit that Theresa May will be allowed to arrange.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:36 am

nil_desperandum wrote:have you seen the surveys saying that large numbers of Tories turned to Labour - despite not agreeing with Corbyn, because they couldn't support May asking for a mandate for a hard brexit.
That is the message for the Tories.

This is right. But the same applies in other areas too. It was one of the most arrogant and complacent election campaigns you're ever likely to see, and they only realised when it was too late.