General Election 2017 Mega Thread

[SonofPog]

I remember when there was nothing... anyone else remember when there was nothing? Oh it was brilliant. You could leave your door unlocked at night

[Greenmile]

Y'know, just when it was us native Anglo Saxons.

Bloody Germans, coming over here etc etc....

[Imploding Turtle]

Bloody Germans, coming over here etc etc....

WHAT'S WRONG WITH JUST WORSHIPING A TREE?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cgeXd5kRDg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[South West Claret.]

Has she gone yet?

Well has she, and if not why not

[claretdom]

That's because you think a successful election result can only be winning it. Corbyn was supposed to lose terribly. May was supposed to have a three-figure majority. The target for Corbyn and Labour was simply to keep that majority as small as possible. The fact that they prevented a tory majority altogether is a huge success considering what they were up against in terms of the hatred directed at them and smears about them in the press.

You can continue to delude yourself into thinking that the Labour campaign was a failure because they didn't win, in fact I welcome it. It bodes well for the left in the next GE for you to continue to think this way.

I understand he did better than expected I just don't get celebrating being a successful loser. The fact still remains had Labour had a decent leader they would have won the election.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good analysis on the election here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt ... l_election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

I get what you are saying claretdom, but there is going to be another election within the year.

The momentum is with Labour at the moment, and I can't see anything changing in the near future.

[claretdom]

I get what you are saying claretdom, but there is going to be another election within the year.

The momentum is with Labour at the moment, and I can't see anything changing in the near future.

I agree it is, but if he leads the party again in an election he won't win. Look at his actions with Dianne Abbott dropping her due to "illness" in the last moments before voting, rumours of her being replaced and then soon as voting is done he puts her back in the same job. Point still stands though had labour a good leader they would have won. Labour were given an open goal with the ball 3 yards out and put it wide.

Prior to this election I have never not voted labour and in the weeks leading up to it I was voting conservative, when it came to the day I voted for the Greens purely on the basis I wanted neither of them to win and be in power.

[Imploding Turtle]

I understand he did better than expected I just don't get celebrating being a successful loser. The fact still remains had Labour had a decent leader they would have won the election.

Had it been a remotely fair contest Labour would have won. The Conservatives had the vast majority of the press drumming up genuine hatred for Corbyn for the last two years and it went into overdrive for the election, and they still couldn't win even a majority, let alone the three-figure majority they expected.

When people say "if labour had a decent leader" what you really mean is a centrist like David Miliband or Andy Burnham. And maybe Labour would have won with either of those, but so what? It's not a team sport. Labour isn't my team where winning by playing boring is acceptable. Labour might have won but it would have been with a manifesto that i'm not interested in and not much different to a Blair-era Labour manifesto.

The reason we're so happy about the result is because Corbyn exceeded expectations, but we're also bouyantly looking to the near future because this was acheived despite the hatred of the right-wing press and without the PLP's support. It's proof that the hateful, lying right-wing press is a dying influence which is a good thing regardless of politics, and it also suggests that Labour will do even better next time if the rest of the PLP can get their heads out of their arses and actually show up instead of spending the whole election sharpening their knives.

[claretdom]

Had it been a remotely fair contest Labour would have won. The Conservatives had the vast majority of the press drumming up genuine hatred for Corbyn for the last two years and it went into overdrive for the election, and they still couldn't win even a majority, let alone the three-figure majority they expected.

When people say "if labour had a decent leader" what you really mean is a centrist like David Miliband or Andy Burnham. And maybe Labour would have won with either of those, but so what? It's not a team sport. Labour isn't my team where winning by playing boring is acceptable. Labour might have won but it would have been with a manifesto that i'm not interested in and not much different to a Blair-era Labour manifesto.

The reason we're so happy about the result is because Corbyn exceeded expectations, but we're also bouyantly looking to the near future because this was acheived despite the hatred of the right-wing press and without the PLP's support. It's proof that the hateful, lying right-wing press is a dying influence which is a good thing regardless of politics, and it also suggests that Labour will do even better next time if the rest of the PLP can get their heads out of their arses and actually show up instead of spending the whole election sharpening their knives.

I think you are giving too much credit to the press having much influence. Corbyn did well because May was a disaster not because he was good. Enough people saw how bad she performed. It may not be a team sport but Labour's target was to win they didn't. Using the team analogy you could say it is like a non league team expecting to lose 5-0 in the FA Cup and only losing 1-0, most looking on would say awww and clap but come the next round you are involved.

[claretandy]

Had it been a remotely fair contest Labour would have won. The Conservatives had the vast majority of the press drumming up genuine hatred for Corbyn for the last two years and it went into overdrive for the election, and they still couldn't win even a majority, let alone the three-figure majority they expected.

When people say "if labour had a decent leader" what you really mean is a centrist like David Miliband or Andy Burnham. And maybe Labour would have won with either of those, but so what? It's not a team sport. Labour isn't my team where winning by playing boring is acceptable. Labour might have won but it would have been with a manifesto that i'm not interested in and not much different to a Blair-era Labour manifesto.

The reason we're so happy about the result is because Corbyn exceeded expectations, but we're also bouyantly looking to the near future because this was acheived despite the hatred of the right-wing press and without the PLP's support. It's proof that the hateful, lying right-wing press is a dying influence which is a good thing regardless of politics, and it also suggests that Labour will do even better next time if the rest of the PLP can get their heads out of their arses and actually show up instead of spending the whole election sharpening their knives.

You can't have it both ways, either the right wing press Is a dying influence or their attacks stopped him winning. Which is it ?

[martin_p]

I agree it is, but if he leads the party again in an election he won't win. Look at his actions with Dianne Abbott dropping her due to "illness" in the last moments before voting, rumours of her being replaced and then soon as voting is done he puts her back in the same job. Point still stands though had labour a good leader they would have won. Labour were given an open goal with the ball 3 yards out and put it wide.

Prior to this election I have never not voted labour and in the weeks leading up to it I was voting conservative, when it came to the day I voted for the Greens purely on the basis I wanted neither of them to win and be in power.

It was far from an 'open goal'. Up until the election (that she called) May had looked in control and unassailable (which is exactly why she called the election). What we didn't know then is how easily she'd crumble when put under the slightest bit of pressure. She started the campaign a country mile ahead in the polls and it was the growing realisation that she was useless, allied with a growing confidence and a good manifesto from Labour that lead to the result we got. Had the campaign been a couple of weeks longer I reckon Labour may have been the biggest party.

[If it be your will]

.

[Damo]

IMG_20170622_132922.jpg (427.66 KiB) Viewed 2686 times

[starting_11]

The Conservatives had the money and the majority of the press. Effectively they got to choose the timing of the election and the length of campaign as well. They also got to choose the stage - on account of being in government for the last 7 years. They were also able to set the agenda - by invoking article 50 immediately before the election.

In footballing terms it was like playing away, being reduced to seven men before kick-off, and still managing to take it to a replay. (It was a brilliant, free-flowing performance as well.)

Nah it's cos idiots believe everything they read on the internet and 75% of the country are peasants who would rather bankrupt the country than have someone make £1 more than them a day.

[Imploding Turtle]

You can't have it both ways, either the right wing press Is a dying influence or their attacks stopped him winning. Which is it ?

Yes i can, because they're not a dead influence yet. They still have a significant effect, just not as much as they used to.

[If it be your will]

.

[Imploding Turtle]

#pray4paul

[Paul Waine]

Hi Guys, come back on here to find out how this thread is still going...

Some interesting idea being expressed.

So, re the next GE:
How will the "social media" perform v the "traditional media" next time?
Who thinks Theresa May will be leading the Conservatives next time?
Who thinks Jeremy Corbyn will be leading the Labour party next time?
And, what will all the PLP who aren't in JC's shadow cabinet be doing?

[Damo]

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, stating what most sensible people have been saying for months about Corbyns spending plans
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -9kmtc5c33" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[If it be your will]

.

[Damo]

Before it fades behind a paywall, it says:

There are all sorts of ways to run a successful economy. In France, in Finland, in Belgium and in Denmark state spending is equivalent to more than half of the economy

I agree. Especially if the very richest pay for most of it, which was Corbyn's plan.

It isn't a paywall. Read it properly

[CrosspoolClarets]

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, stating what most sensible people have been saying for months about Corbyns spending plans
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -9kmtc5c33" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The IFS of course are the ones viewed as fair, skilled and independent during the Brexit debate (the one where they said there would be a financial hit which would be greater if there is a big migration reduction, and lesser if not), so they should be viewed as the same here.

The problem is that the Tories played the man not the ball. They didn't focus on these economic issues at all, nor did they focus on some of the pillars of conservatism like low tax, leaving money for the individual to spend, pro business, pro growth, balancing the books. This has now led to Remainers like Hammond trying to rewrite the referendum result which means all of the Government's focus will be on it's own EU infighting.

I think we are on the cusp of becoming more like France and less like Australia, Canada or the US. That is, we will have a slightly left wing ethos on average, with gradually declining wealth per capita as a result, more reliance on the state and less happiness. Labour will be in power for 30 years, mainly with a leader somewhere between Corbyn and a centrist.

The Tories fear this, so they will avoid an election and even a leadership battle at all costs, which means we will end up with a Brexit that isn't really a Brexit - something I have consistently predicted for 12 months. That will mean the above left wing lifestyle and declining wealth will be accompanied by a huge fury, the pre-referendum fury with the EU magnified tenfold if the establishment find a way to keep us partly in. All in all, it won't be a pleasant country to live in, which is a fairly depressing prediction.

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

Anything that is "less like the US" is good.

Being serious for a second, we live in a country where more than one someone seriously thought it was Ok to put one fire escape, no fire extinguishers, no sprinkler systems and flammable cladding on to a block of flats.

We need to change from that type of country before its too late.

[aggi]

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, stating what most sensible people have been saying for months about Corbyns spending plans
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -9kmtc5c33" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was surprised by this line It would have taken taxes to their highest level in peacetime. . During the 70s corporation tax was up in the 50s and income tax in the 70s, I don't remember any suggestions that rates were going to go this high.

The article basically says that there has to be trade-offs. Better public services may cost people more. Is that a surprising conclusion? Although he does neglect somewhat companies such as Apple who are using tax breaks to just stash cash offshore rather than using it to further the economy. They've got $230bn in offshore accounts doing nothing, higher coroporate tax/anti-avoidance wouldn't have the knock-on effect into the UK economy for Apple for instance.

[BleedingClaret]

1375..bleedingClaret..

'He can't stand on an empty IRA ammunition crate in Brussels,''

Have you been away for a couple of weeks?
Why don't you keep up...read a few more posts?

That IRA [peace talks] stuff is so much yesterday's news..really - it didn't work anyway..give it a rest.

There's a new story in town...they are called the DUP - they are running the show now, listen to them.



** 'would probably neutralise him.'..???

Really?..or is that just more rubbish/bollux from you - please explain that one carefully, if you can..love to hear what you have to say.

The Belgians said they had neutralised the nice fellow that rammed a police car, I wondered what that entailed?
I find Corbyn very acidic and would throw copious amounts of Bicarbonate of Soda over him to achieve the above

if the Tories need the DUP10, then surely the loony Labour left, anti British establishment types, would need their revolutionary friends.

As for being away..... yes with the fairies most days...... and that's not me coming out before you start.