General Election 2017 Mega Thread

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

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.

Exactly. Almost like some people in this country would like people to be forced how to vote 'the right way'.

[nil_desperandum]

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.

I don't think that some have even realised yet, listening to some Tory politicians this morning. "Everyone's fault except their own"

[Lancasterclaret]

Shock

Brexiteers still don't understand the difference between a hard and soft brexit, because all they want is a the hardest possible and refuse to accept that there needs to be a compromise.

Andy, if I was like you, I'd be saying we should cancel article 50 right now. But I'm not, and I know that won't happen.

All you've got to do is come to terms with it and then realise you have got what you want, just not as much as you want.

[Paul Waine]

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.

Hi Spiral, mine's a Becks Blue these days - or any other decent non-alcoholic beer. (Thankfully, "zero" alcohol beers have moved on since the days of Kaliber). Don't get me wrong - I've only gone zero alcohol after heart attack. And, I'm sure we will find common ground, we are both Clarets fans.

What are you having - my shout.

Yes, my politics aren't "conventional" or "mainstream" - but I've got lot's of "for the common good" ideas. (OK, my view). Economically/taxation I'm a "bigger cake" person - then spend the money generously and wisely. If politics is defined by left wing and right wing I'm probably at the centre of the diamond, though I've no idea whether I'm leading the attack or organising the defence.

[Paul Waine]

I don't think that some have even realised yet, listening to some Tory politicians this morning. "Everyone's fault except their own"

Hi nil_d, isn't that a bit unfair? All the tories I've heard this morning have been saying it was "TM and her advisors" fault.

[Paul Waine]

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.

I've not seen the end of Bretton Woods and the formation of OPEC and their subsequent oil price actions being linked before. How was the oil price rise a consequence of BW?

[Jakubclaret]

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.

People have there own minds & will believe what there want to believe. Challenging or remaining impervious to any post may have an affect on your own thought processes it won't necessarily sway anybody to think likewise.

[nil_desperandum]

Hi nil_d, isn't that a bit unfair? All the tories I've heard this morning have been saying it was "TM and her advisors" fault.

Hi Paul,
That doesn't conflict with what I said.
Firstly I deliberately said "some" not all.
Excuses we've heard:
It's the fault of young voters, who got it wrong, young people voted tactically, it's the fault of UKip voters not all of who came across to us, it's the Labour party who were promising everything to everybody etc. etc., it's Mrs May and her advisers fault, "we underestimated Jeremy Corbyn's ability as a campaigner" etc. etc. etc.
Does the Tory Party not have control of its own leadership, policy and destiny?
Presumably she didn't call the election without support from her own party.? (In fact her MPs couldn't wait to vote for it in Parliament.) Presumably they agreed that she should market it as a presidential style campaign, asking for a personal mandate for a hard brexit?
I could make further points, but the bottom line is, there are very few who are saying: "We were hoping for a vote of confidence from the electorate. The people have spoken. We clearly now need to address the reasons why a 20 point lead was virtually wiped out. We apologise wholeheartedly to all our hard working constituency parties, who we have failed, and will be having a policy review shortly - especially in so far as our manifesto is concerned, and we must now look at our approach to EU negotiations".
Michael Fallon -who seemed to be the govts spokesman on Andrew Marr this morning, didn't seem to regard Tory policy and TM as the most significant factor in the result.

[taio]

And I haven't heard a Labour MP say something like 'at the end of the day we still got beat and we have no democratic right to govern this country at the moment'

[RingoMcCartney]

All the Remoaners should think about this. They're celebrating. But they don't realise WHAT they're celebrating. They're celebrating democracy.

They've had the democratic opportunity to vote for an MP. And by doing so they've elected someone who has a DIRECT effect on legislation.

In the EU scenario, when you elect an MEP, you are electing someone who can only rubber stamp the legislation that has been formed by the UNELECTED European Commission.

So by all means celebrate that your vote may have altered the course of the Westminster legislation.

But acknowledge you have no DIRECTLY democratic way of doing the same in Brussels.

Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.......

[nil_desperandum]

And I haven't heard a Labour MP say something like 'at the end of the day we still got beat and we have no democratic right to govern this country at the moment'

I'm not sure they need to say this, or indeed that they have claimed any "democratic right to govern". (I'll defer if you can find a quote where they have said this.)
The Labour Party didn't demand or call for a general election, but couldn't refuse one when TM called one - despite stating many times that she wouldn't. In Pendle (e.g.) the Labour Party didn't even have a candidate because they were led to believe that there would be boundary changes before the next Gen Election!
But also if you were to add up the popular vote for Labour, SNP and Lib Dem it's about 2 million more than the Tories, so whilst we are not disputing that the Tories got more seats than anyone else, they didn't achieve what they set out to do, and votes for the 3 parties who want a soft brexit and an end to austerity got 2 million more votes. (There's only the DUP who would be prepared to support the Tories , and they are hostile to more austerity and also want a soft brexit).

[If it be your will]

.

[taio]

I'm not sure they need to say this, or indeed that they have claimed any "democratic right to govern". (I'll defer if you can find a quote where they have said this.)
The Labour Party didn't demand or call for a general election, but couldn't refuse one when TM called one - despite stating many times that she wouldn't. In Pendle (e.g.) the Labour Party didn't even have a candidate because they were led to believe that there would be boundary changes before the next Gen Election!
But also if you were to add up the popular vote for Labour, SNP and Lib Dem it's about 2 million more than the Tories, so whilst we are not disputing that the Tories got more seats than anyone else, they didn't achieve what they set out to do, and votes for the 3 parties who want a soft brexit and an end to austerity got 2 million more votes. (There's only the DUP who would be prepared to support the Tories , and they are hostile to more austerity and also want a soft brexit).

There has been talk of them trying to gain power so there must be people in the Labour party who think they have a democratic right to govern. I heard the shadow chancellor say just that on the radio on Friday on my way to work.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul,
That doesn't conflict with what I said.
Firstly I deliberately said "some" not all.
Excuses we've heard:
It's the fault of young voters, who got it wrong, young people voted tactically, it's the fault of UKip voters not all of who came across to us, it's the Labour party who were promising everything to everybody etc. etc., it's Mrs May and her advisers fault, "we underestimated Jeremy Corbyn's ability as a campaigner" etc. etc. etc.
Does the Tory Party not have control of its own leadership, policy and destiny?
Presumably she didn't call the election without support from her own party.? (In fact her MPs couldn't wait to vote for it in Parliament.) Presumably they agreed that she should market it as a presidential style campaign, asking for a personal mandate for a hard brexit?
I could make further points, but the bottom line is, there are very few who are saying: "We were hoping for a vote of confidence from the electorate. The people have spoken. We clearly now need to address the reasons why a 20 point lead was virtually wiped out. We apologise wholeheartedly to all our hard working constituency parties, who we have failed, and will be having a policy review shortly - especially in so far as our manifesto is concerned, and we must now look at our approach to EU negotiations".
Michael Fallon -who seemed to be the govts spokesman on Andrew Marr this morning, didn't seem to regard Tory policy and TM as the most significant factor in the result.

Agree with you. I didn't see Marr/Fallon. I guess the gov't has to "stick together" - while they sort things out in private.

The way I read it - and I think this is very simple - TM is not the person/leader "we" (the country) thought she was 8 weeks ago. We'd heard things about her leadership style, the fact she didn't like "mansplainers" and that she kept her counsel with her two advisors - and excluded everyone else. When Cameron resigned and TM became leader/PM we all thought she was the best PM: voted remain, female (therefore, more conciliatory/less confrontational than a "macho" male), she would unite the country (at a time we needed uniting) and the (surprise) result of the referendum would be managed successfully. Of course, what we've seen is that the "wheels have come off," and that TM is not a leader - and, with the social care policy proposal, she can't handle it when she is criticised and things have gone wrong (I think the mistakes resulted from her political advisors - and not sharing the "half-baked" idea with the wider tory leadership). We don't know TM well enough to know the source of these weaknesses. I understand she is an only child, as well as a vicar's daughter - most of us learn to handle disagreements and compromise when we grew up with our siblings and friends. I also wonder whether TM's diabetes is a factor. I haven't seen this mentioned at all through the election period. I don't know anything about the health effects of diabetes. I do remember it being mentioned when she first became PM. And, I think she's looked unwell since the Andrew Neil "social care" interview. Maybe she will step down for health reasons in a few month time.

For a historical perspective: Churchill was PM when he suffered a debilitating stroke - which was hidden from the electorate. He stepped down a little later. Wilson (I think it has been confirmed) was suffering from the early stages of dementia in 1976 when he was PM - again, was hidden from the electorate. He resigned, unexpectedly and from memory it was a bit of a mystery why at the time and was replaced by Jim Callaghan.

EDIT: To complete this little essay, we have all noted that the two political advisors have resigned already. I'll take that as "data in the public domain" corroboration of some parts of my analysis.

[Spijed]

All the Remoaners should think about this. They're celebrating. But they don't realise WHAT they're celebrating. They're celebrating democracy.

They've had the democratic opportunity to vote for an MP. And by doing so they've elected someone who has a DIRECT effect on legislation.

In the EU scenario, when you elect an MEP, you are electing someone who can only rubber stamp the legislation that has been formed by the UNELECTED European Commission.

So by all means celebrate that your vote may have altered the course of the Westminster legislation.

But acknowledge you have no DIRECTLY democratic way of doing the same in Brussels.

Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.......

Ringo, the more people are called "remoaners" the more they are likely to vote against a MP that wants to leave the EU. As the election has shown there are great swathes of people in the south of England who wanted to stay and the results pointed that way. The idea that the 48% should just suck it up and accept the result will not get us anywhere. Unless you are prepared to compromise we will forever have a divided country, almost down the middle.

[Jakubclaret]

I'm not sure they need to say this, or indeed that they have claimed any "democratic right to govern". (I'll defer if you can find a quote where they have said this.)
The Labour Party didn't demand or call for a general election, but couldn't refuse one when TM called one - despite stating many times that she wouldn't. In Pendle (e.g.) the Labour Party didn't even have a candidate because they were led to believe that there would be boundary changes before the next Gen Election!
But also if you were to add up the popular vote for Labour, SNP and Lib Dem it's about 2 million more than the Tories, so whilst we are not disputing that the Tories got more seats than anyone else, they didn't achieve what they set out to do, and votes for the 3 parties who want a soft brexit and an end to austerity got 2 million more votes. (There's only the DUP who would be prepared to support the Tories , and they are hostile to more austerity and also want a soft brexit).

Exactly. It wasn't labours call with regards to a general election announcement there didn't have much of a choice. Labour did better than I expected I don't think anybody with a realistic viewpoint expected labour to win outright. The conservatives are the losers really in being bolshy in the run-up & not really recognising the issues surrounding brexit. There wasn't a need IMO for a general election in the first place if she didn't have the confidence to deliver a strong enough mandate without 1 she's in the wrong job & so the results have proved this.

[nil_desperandum]

There has been talk of them trying to gain power so there must be people in the Labour party who think they have a democratic right to govern. I heard the shadow chancellor say just that on the radio on Friday on my way to work.

Saying that they believe they can put together a Queens speech and govern is nowhere near the same as saying: we have a democratic right to govern.
As I said. Find me a quote where they have claimed a "democratic right".
No one has a majority or mandate, but the huge difference is that they weren't starting from a 50/50 position. TM put her party's majority on the line and lost it.
Personally I think some kind of minority Labour govt or coalition of the left would be a bad idea because it wouldn't work well for the left and it's better to let the Tories scramble around for a bit , until the inevitable Gen Election.

[taio]

I dont need to find a quote - they were my words not anybody else's. Because if they want to form a government they have to believe they have a democratic right to do so.

[Devils_Advocate]

In the case of a hung parliament all party leaders have the right of trying to form a govt and getting support for it.

May has the first opportunity and it looks certain with support from the DUP they will get the votes they needs to get their programme approved but if they were to fail then Corbyn and labour would have every right to look to either form a majority coalition or get support from a minority govt.

Until the Conservatives are confirmed as the new govt then Corbyn and labour would not be carrying out their political duty not to plan for the possibility of forming a govt

[nil_desperandum]

I dont need to find a quote - they were my words not anybody else's. Because if they want to form a government they have to believe they have a democratic right to do so.

With a hung Parliament I dont think any party has can or will claim a democratic right to govern.
Unless we have another election next month we have to have governance.
The Tories are trying to form a govt. If they can't, then there's no democratic reason why the other parties can't try.
It happens all the time in other countries.
The party with most seats doesn't always form the govt.

[BabylonClaret]

All the Remoaners should think about this. They're celebrating. But they don't realise WHAT they're celebrating. They're celebrating democracy.

They've had the democratic opportunity to vote for an MP. And by doing so they've elected someone who has a DIRECT effect on legislation.

In the EU scenario, when you elect an MEP, you are electing someone who can only rubber stamp the legislation that has been formed by the UNELECTED European Commission.

So by all means celebrate that your vote may have altered the course of the Westminster legislation.

But acknowledge you have no DIRECTLY democratic way of doing the same in Brussels.

Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.......

Except that is complete and utter nonsense. All the Commission, Council and Parliament are either directly elected by public or appointed/elected by individual Governments who are (yep you guessed it) accountable to their electorate through a democratic vote.

The strategy and approach of the EU is agreed and set by member state governments. We are a strong part of this (for now). The commission takes this strategy and prepares draft laws/regulations - these are then voted for by MEPs. The laws/regs are subject to challenge, amendment, refinement by the Parliament, Council and any number of other bodies. That's not a "rubber stamp" at all.

It's rubbish like this that makes people think that the EU is a monster that just does what it wants and the UK then has to meekly accept what it gets without any sort of view at all. We have representatives involved in every step of the process and are actively contributing.

[IanMcL]

Mayday
Mayday

Headline in Friday's Scotsman newspaper.

The foxes are nibbling away. She'll soon be gone. Had not realised they liked lame duck as well as chicken!

[Paul Waine]

Except that is complete and utter nonsense. All the Commission, Council and Parliament are either directly elected by public or appointed/elected by individual Governments who are (yep you guessed it) accountable to their electorate through a democratic vote.

The strategy and approach of the EU is agreed and set by member state governments. We are a strong part of this (for now). The commission takes this strategy and prepares draft laws/regulations - these are then voted for by MEPs. The laws/regs are subject to challenge, amendment, refinement by the Parliament, Council and any number of other bodies. That's not a "rubber stamp" at all.

It's rubbish like this that makes people think that the EU is a monster that just does what it wants and the UK then has to meekly accept what it gets without any sort of view at all. We have representatives involved in every step of the process and are actively contributing.

Hi Babylon, I'm confused. There are some posters on here who complain that a UK government that has been elected by less then 50%+1 of the votes is not a democratically elected government.

Yes, we vote for MEPs. Do any of us know how many MEPs there are? Do any of us know which EU constituency we are in and who our MEP(s) are? Can we name them? Who is it who elected Farage? Who was it who elected Clegg when he was MEP? I've no idea. Would any of us think of going to see our EU constituency MEP rather than our UK constituency MP?

Council is made up of the 28 member state governments. Do we know how this works?

Commission, including President are appointed by member states. But, are these the equivalent of civil servants and are apolitical? When do we get the chance to vote on the President? We don't - and when we elect our own government it isn't on the basis of them acting as an electoral college and appointing a EU President that we have had the opportunity to choose.

Yes, I understand the processes that the EU follows to make decisions, agree directives and set regulations. (I've been involved professionally in discussions on one or two of these). But, its hard to claim that it is a directly elected democracy in the way that democracy exists in each of the EU member states. Maybe the EU would be better if it was closer to the electorate in the member states. Maybe the UK would not have voted to leave if this was the case.

[nil_desperandum]

Hi Babylon, I'm confused. There are some posters on here who complain that a UK government that has been elected by less then 50%+1 of the votes is not a democratically elected government.

Yes, we vote for MEPs. Do any of us know how many MEPs there are? Do any of us know which EU constituency we are in and who our MEP(s) are? Can we name them? Who is it who elected Farage? Who was it who elected Clegg when he was MEP? I've no idea. Would any of us think of going to see our EU constituency MEP rather than our UK constituency MP?

Council is made up of the 28 member state governments. Do we know how this works?
.

If we don't then it's most surely our own fault. All the info is out there if you look for it, and at the most basic level we all get to vote for our MEPs, we know what area we are in, and even if we do no further research we usually get info about them in the run-up to EU elections, and their names are on the ballot paper. So actually we've no excuse for not knowing these things if we are interested.
The problem is that successive governments and the press have not encouraged us to engage in politics at this level.
In the answers to your questions, I can say - 1. No - not without checking, Yes, Yes, Yes, and No. But you could ask me similar questions about local, and county elections and I would probably be less certain. (I honestly don't know many statistics about the County elections other than who wasn't elected in my area)

[nil_desperandum]

Meanwhile - in other news.
It looks as though Mrs May is about to bring back Michael Gove. She might not be a fan of his, but I suppose she calculates that if he is one of her right hand men he won't be able to stab her in the back, (or as in Boris' case, pretty much straight into the heart).

[Jakubclaret]

A cabinet reshuffle was always likely I don't think it's a bad idea having gove back on board again he could be instrumental in advising forthcoming brexit talks.

[RingoMcCartney]

Except that is complete and utter nonsense. All the Commission, Council and Parliament are either directly elected by public or appointed/elected by individual Governments who are (yep you guessed it) accountable to their electorate through a democratic vote.

The strategy and approach of the EU is agreed and set by member state governments. We are a strong part of this (for now). The commission takes this strategy and prepares draft laws/regulations - these are then voted for by MEPs. The laws/regs are subject to challenge, amendment, refinement by the Parliament, Council and any number of other bodies. That's not a "rubber stamp" at all.

It's rubbish like this that makes people think that the EU is a monster that just does what it wants and the UK then has to meekly accept what it gets without any sort of view at all. We have representatives involved in every step of the process and are actively contributing.

"directly elected by public or appointed/elected by individual Governments who are (yep you guessed it) accountable to their electorate through a democratic vote"

And by your own admission. Your own admission.

Elected BY THE PUBLIC OR. OR .OR that's the key word! APPOINTED. I.e. not vulnerable to the ballot box.

The European Commission is not elected by me , you or any of the 550 million Europeans.

Even the EU begrudgingly admits there's a "democratic deficit" which is at the heart of this experiment.

There is no ballot paper where you and I can put an "X" next to the name of a member of the European commission.

Full stop . End of.

[nil_desperandum]

I don't think it's a bad idea having gove back on board again he could be instrumental in advising forthcoming brexit talks.

I bet Boris and his supporters do.
It's no secret that TM has a longstanding dislike of Gove, and they have clashed over the years. Apparently she spent less than 2 minutes dismissing him from office when she took over from Cameron.
Yes, he might turn out to be useful in Brexit talks, but it doesn't change my view that she has given him a relatively minor post - and a bit of a poisoned chalice (given how divided farmers are over the EU, migrants etc) - to keep him out of mischief, and prevent him being involved in any potential coup.

[john'sroseyspecs]

Better to have him inside the tent....

[Mala591]

Julie Cooper's ten point plan to improve Burnley and Padiham:

1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?

Any suggestions to guide Julie what we expect her to do over the next 5 years?

[CrosspoolClarets]

I'm a member of Momentum. Yes, we like to think we did a half-decent job. But to suggest we had anything like the financial firepower the Tories had on social media, or anything like the level of sophistication Cambridge Analytics (appear to) have is one of the most laughable suggestions imaginable.

(From page 8 of today's Financial Times: Nearly 10m people watched leftwing videos on Facebook that appear to have turbocharged Jeremy Corbyn's campaign. The cost to make them was less than £2,000.

Sorry it's taken me more than a day to respond to this reply to me.

I'm not suggesting Momentum is using the same underhand tactics that Cambridge Analytics were.

What I'm saying is that the press, despite their right or left leaning nature, have to be careful, they are regulated after all.

Social media is not regulated, and can be abused by terrorists or, hypothetically, morally dodgy political campaigners.

As you say, a Facebook ad costing £2k but reaching millions is good in one sense. In another though, it scares me to death. Who knows who could get elected using it? There is a skill and sophistication of using new media, and it can be abused. That's all I'm saying.

[nil_desperandum]

Julie Cooper's ten point plan to improve Burnley and Padiham:

1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?
9. ?
10. ?

Any suggestions to guide Julie what we expect her to do over the next 5 years?

Yes.
She should do her best for the town and its economy by doing all she can in Parliament to push for continued access to the Single Market, and to negotiate a Brexit deal that retains all the benefits and funding that we have had as EU members.
Other groups / areas such as farmers, Cornwall and Wales have already made a case to the Govt for them to match the funding they used to receive from the EU, and now it looks like the Irish will want extra money too. Then there is a for need subsidies to keep companies such as Nissan in the UK.
We are due to lose millions in support, and there won't be much money flying around, so it will be down to MPs of all colours in the region to champion East Lancashire.

[Spijed]

What I'm saying is that the press, despite their right or left leaning nature, have to be careful, they are regulated after all.

No they don't. How often are they sued for libel, knowing what they've published is wrong, then offering an apology on page 52 of the paper, so small it can't be read?

They stump up the cost for damages, knowing full well the perception of the story sticks in the minds of those who read it.

[If it be your will]

.

[Spijed]

I thought cutting someone off mid-sentence to completely misrepresent what was actually said was a trick used by Have I Got News For You

Yes, when JC was supposed to have said killing Bin Laden was a tragedy.

The press knew full well what they were doing with that one.

[Lancasterclaret]

In other news, see the collapse of the EU is going according to plan.......oh wait

[CrosspoolClarets]

Momentum simply don't have the money for mass advertising. They had very modest costs to produce material and relied on followers sharing it - rather than paying for adverts.

Considering what they were up against, they did remarkably well.

I agree, they did incredibly well. Still way short, but incredibly well. They have harnessed the power of their core support in a way the Tories don't.

If I was a fly on the wall though, listening to conversations that will have taken place between Jon Lansman and Len McClusky, I would probably smirk at the feeling that Momentum is in any way impoverished or small time. They have, in essence, taken over one of the two major parties of one of the world's most powerful countries.

The truly impoverished parties (relatively) who do very well considered would be the likes of UKIP, and, in the interests of balance, the Liberal Democrats.

[Lancasterclaret]

Lab could have a million members soon.

The Lib Dems have over 100,000

I don't know Conservative numbers, or UKIPs, but there is nothing wrong with activists campaigning for a party. Its kinda part of this pesky democracy that quite a few of you thought was ace last year, but not so ace since Thursday.

[Bin Ont Turf]

In other other news, the Tories still have the largest amount of seats with 44% of the total vote and still it was Labour who won.

And in other other other news, apparently millions of young people voted for the first time (they couldn't be bothered to vote in the EU referendum) because some older people didn't get the result that they hoped for and tell us so.

Bees and bonnets

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh aye, not denying any of that BOT but you cannot argue that a lot of "the will of the people" brigade on here (and elsewhere) are a lot more ****** off then they were.

From a purely UK sense, it means the entrenched views of last year are not going away anytime soon and that whoever in charge has a hell of a job to bring unity to the country.

Its safe to say that its a novel approach being taken in this by Mrs May, what with inviting creationists into government!

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

If we don't then it's most surely our own fault. All the info is out there if you look for it, and at the most basic level we all get to vote for our MEPs, we know what area we are in, and even if we do no further research we usually get info about them in the run-up to EU elections, and their names are on the ballot paper. So actually we've no excuse for not knowing these things if we are interested.
The problem is that successive governments and the press have not encouraged us to engage in politics at this level.
In the answers to your questions, I can say - 1. No - not without checking, Yes, Yes, Yes, and No. But you could ask me similar questions about local, and county elections and I would probably be less certain. (I honestly don't know many statistics about the County elections other than who wasn't elected in my area)

Hi nil_d, my point is that MEPs and their activities are largely anonymous. They/we don't have a 1-1 relationship - because there are 8 MEPs elected for each of the very large constituencies. (I've no idea if they operate constituency offices, or how you can arrange to meet any/all of your constituency MEPs). The MEPs activities aren't reported on frequently in the media - with the exception of Farage and UKIP (but not for normal political business reasons, but rather for the friction that UKIP looks to create). This reflects that political power/influence is in Parliament in the UK - and I expect this is the same in all other member states. I had to search to find which constituency I am in. It turns out I'm in "London" - but it could have been the "South East" constituency. (I'm a little relieved it's not the later, that's where Farage was elected). Having read the names of the 8 MEPs for London - I know I don't really know any of them (I've heard one or two of their names before - and I think I've seen one or two on tv, probably QT). Apart from their "national party" I don't really know anything about any of the 8. (Easy to make a guess about "ukip" and "green" but whether the conservatives or the labour are right/left/centre of their respective parties I've no idea.

In my case, I do know something about my local council and about the Greater London Authority - second tier and third tier in English political administrative structure, respectively. I also know something about the neighbouring local and county councils. These bodies are reported on in the media I see.

I don't accept your statement that "successive governments and the press have not encouraged us to engage in politics at this level." If it was an area we could influence it would be first and foremost in our media. I don't buy the "press manipulation" story - they are commercial organisations (agree, with political viewpoints) but their commercial aims means that they report on what we want to read/want to know. The UK press is a reflection of the UK population and our interests.

[nil_desperandum]

I don't accept your statement that "successive governments and the press have not encouraged us to engage in politics at this level." If it was an area we could influence it would be first and foremost in our media. I don't buy the "press manipulation" story - they are commercial organisations (agree, with political viewpoints) but their commercial aims means that they report on what we want to read/want to know. The UK press is a reflection of the UK population and our interests.

Ok.
So what percentage / proportion of pages, on a daily basis, in the papers covers Parliamentary reports of debates etc from the EU Parliament, articles by MEPs, balanced editorials about EU issues etc. We only tend to get "straight banana" type stories in the tabloids, distortion of home politics, (both for the left and right, depending on the paper), and pages full of worthless trivia about soap stars and celebs have for their breakfast, (or who they had the night before).
There's been virtually no intelligent or balanced reporting about Europe and the EU in particular so long as I can remember.
"their commercial aims means that they report on what we want to read/want to know". Exactly.

[Damo]

I you think newspapers don't paint a balanced or intelligent picture regarding politics, I would to hear your views on the guff that was posted all over social media.
The amount of people who I spoke to who were voting labour because they didn't think the NHS should be privatised was unbelievable.
It doesn't matter what coverage politics gets from respectable newspapers as most people don't read them

[Spijed]

I you think newspapers don't paint a balanced or intelligent picture regarding politics, I would to hear your views on the guff that was posted all over social media.
The amount of people who I spoke to who were voting labour because they didn't think the NHS should be privatised was unbelievable.
It doesn't matter what coverage politics gets from respectable newspapers as most people don't read them

Damo, it's clearly obvious some of the press still lie, and that will influence many voters:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/me ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Yup, and the Conservative party and its backers suddenly realised that on Thursday night. But they didn't understand that if The Sun and the Mail printed an inflammatory ridiculous biased front page, then it would get shared everywhere by those who think that kind of coverage is wrong.

I was still unsure whether to tactically vote till I saw the Sun and Mails headline on twitter. That was the last straw and I happily voted for the anti-tory candidate in my marginal.

[quoonbeatz]

Social media is not regulated, and can be abused by terrorists or, hypothetically, morally dodgy political campaigners.

As you say, a Facebook ad costing £2k but reaching millions is good in one sense. In another though, it scares me to death. Who knows who could get elected using it?

donald trump.

[Spijed]

I you think newspapers don't paint a balanced or intelligent picture regarding politics, I would to hear your views on the guff that was posted all over social media.
The amount of people who I spoke to who were voting labour because they didn't think the NHS should be privatised was unbelievable.
It doesn't matter what coverage politics gets from respectable newspapers as most people don't read them

How come it's OK to say that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser and yet it's not OK to say the NHS is going to be privatised?

[IanMcL]

NHS not to be privatised and foxes not to be euphanised!

May castrated. Mrs Wishy washy!

[dsr]

How come it's OK to say that Jeremy Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser and yet it's not OK to say the NHS is going to be privatised?

Because Jeremy Corbyn has been proved to be a terrorist sympathiser, and because all parties have the same policy on the privatisation of the NHS?