World, Writing, Wealth discussion

World & Current Events > UK Snap Election 2017

Comments Showing 1-50 of 75 (75 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Now the UK will have a snap election on 8th June (If Parliament agrees by 2/3 majority)

More turmoil in the West albeit this is entirely about destroying the Labour Party in England pressurising SNP in Scotland and allegedly to give the Government more power and influence on the Brexit negotiations.

More politicians clogging up TV Screens with a stream of mis-truths for 7 weeks.

message 2: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Read the reports, of course, but not sure I understand UK's internal politics enough to give an opinion. However, when extraordinary elections are announced not as a result of a clear specific reason, the question whether they are beneficial for the country and not just serve some narrow party interests rises.
A little belated brexit reaction?

message 3: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Nik wrote: "Read the reports, of course, but not sure I understand UK's internal politics enough to give an opinion. However, when extraordinary elections are announced not as a result of a clear specific reas..."

All supposed to be about giving new Prime Minister clear mandate for Brexit negotiations without problem of small majority in House of Commons. If the Conservative Party wins of course.

Being 20% ahead in polls has nothing to do with it and I cannot believe you would think that that would influence a politician to do such a thing.

message 4: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Don't want to insult or criticize anyone, but sounds like a lasting lack of leadership and a sad comedy or comic drama.
Cameron setting up the Brexit poll and then resigning after the Out vote, unwillingness of most vociferous Exit advocates to head the process and now elections - instead of just doing it.
A little Tsipras style.
Relying on polls has played quite a few games with politicians in different parts of the globe...
And after all the drama, say - in 10 years from now - I'm not even sure the difference in relations between EU and UK will be that significant, unless of course US firmly sets on undermining EU through different proxies...

message 5: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments TRrde will be interesting post Brexit but we are a long way off and French first round poll is this weekend. We have another 7 weeks of the same rubbish we heard today and have heard for years of missing statistics carefully chosen. Quoting parts of the opposition's (from whichever party) statements and their version of the truth which isn't.

message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments My view is that the polls have nothing to do with this. Quite simply, it is the best strategic move open to May. A lot of the "exit" voters came from labour-held electorates, so there is a good chance she will pick up a lot of additional seats. No matter what happens, the solid tory is hardly likely to vote for Corbyn, so they will have some dead rats to swallow and vote for May. In a sense this is a proxy second referendum, and if May gets a good majority, negotiations with Europe will be much easier. There is also another issue. May's government would have had about three years left. Negotiations are going to take a minimum of two years, and if Europe decided to get tough, they could drag out some issues so they would become tangled with the next election. This way, that won't work, so the temptation to be awkward will be lower for the EU negotiators.

Of course, if May loses, well, she would resign and leave the resultant mess to Corbyn, and who knows what would happen then? That thought will presumably be presented to the voters. So I think May has been smart, logical, and she will hope to do well. If she did not hold this election, the continual yapping at her heels would make negotiations very difficult. As for the SNP, I think she should take the view that what will be will be. There is no point in trying to hold Scotland if the Scots do not want to be part of the UK, but the Scots should realise that if their breaking away is to stay in the EU, they are badly mistaken. They will be put on a long waiting list and Spain will do everything it can to veto their admission. The last thing they need is fuel for the Catalans.

message 7: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Ian wrote: "My view is that the polls have nothing to do with this. Quite simply, it is the best strategic move open to May. A lot of the "exit" voters came from labour-held electorates, so there is a good cha..."

Good analysis as ever Ian - although the cynic in me still looks at the polls.

Her only problem from initial coverage is that up to 4 weeks ago she was saying no to an early election. The liar accusation is already raised alongside trust.

As to opposition the SNP in Scotland may well end up weaker than their current position. Labour is a basket case with in fighting with several standing MPS openly refusing to support their leader going into the elction. The Lib Dems are likely to gain some MPs from their current low mainly urban Remain areas.

One thing that annoys me is the continual talk of voting for May or Corbyn. The only people that can do that are their constituents yet media continually asks who do you want to be Prime Minister. For Theresa May that is the constituents of Maidenhead. If she gets re-elected against whatever opposition stands.. If she is and if she has the largest party the Queen can ask her to form the next Government.

Several ifs there and they may all be likely but Trump was never going to win the US Presidency 2 years ago according to the polls.

message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments Philip, there is a saying down here that a week is a long time in politics. In fairness to May, when she said no to an early election, she probably thought she would get at least a reasonable go at the EU talks, but when it became obvious that everybody wanted to hobble her as much as they could, I think it was reasonable to change her mind. Of course not being a cynic (ha ha) I would be convinced the polls helped her make up her mind.

However, here at least, over the past three elections the polls have really never got it even reasonably right. Which is ominous because we have an election later in the year (required because the term expires in November) and the polls seem to have it all done and dusted.

message 9: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Ian wrote: "There is no point in trying to hold Scotland if the Scots do not want to be part of the UK..."

They voted to 'stay' just recently. Not sure it should be a whimsical issue to be checked biannually. London also didn't seem happy with Brexit

message 10: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments 53 to 48% on UK Brexit out
55 to 45% on Scotland to stay in UK
62% in Scotland voted to remain in EU
60% in London voted to remain in EU

Of each there was in Brexit 72% turnout i.e. 28% could not decide or could not be bothered to vote
On Scotland turnout of Scottish only voters as rest of UK did not get to vote on the subject i.e. England could not vote to expel or keep Scotland 84.5% i.e. more people as a percentage voted in the Scottish independence referendum than Brexit referendum.
2015 General election 66.4% turnout with wide variation dependent on constituency. The Conservatives won 36% of that which gave them overall majority of 12 seats in House of Commons

Who knows what 8th June will bring but probably lower turnout than 2015

message 11: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Philip wrote: "55 to 45% on Scotland to stay in UK ..."

As I understand, it wasn't conditioned then on UK being part of the EU. Neither it should be, in my opinion...
ScotLond lacks contiguity....
8th of June is likely to produce a pulse on the stock-markets, all the rest is probably less certain..

message 12: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments All good analysis from Ian and Philip. I think the bottom line for May was that the statutory General Election would happen immediately after the two year period for concluding Article 50. Imagine the chaos in Parliament during discussions on the terms of Brexit with a General Election round the corner? The whole thing could just blow-up in that scenario. I also think that we and the media do not know the extent of the machinations against Brexit going on from all sides of the House - and outside the House (Blair, Major, Heseltine..)
There is nothing wrong with a politician changing their mind, Nik. Good generals do it to win wars. Intel is a moving target.
Scotland is a bit of a basket case but I have faith in their common sense to realise that breaking up the UK would be like jumping out of a frying pan into the fire. I do think that May saw the possibility that by calling an election it would give the Scots the chance to reassess their futures and ask if the SNP is really the best deal for them at present. But I'm sure her only reason was to strengthen her hand against the Remainers and the EU. But I doubt if she would have taken the gamble without Corbyn being such a spare part.
We are ignoring Northern Ireland in this discussion. You left out those stats, Philip. I think that is a bigger problem post-Brexit than Scotland. It is easy to have a hard-border at Hadrian's Wall should Scotland decide to scoot. But such a border again between North and Southern Ireland is unthinkable unless we want to go back to the bad eighties. A solution would be for Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland with individuals wishing to do so having allegiance to the Queen as a backstop legal process. But who could sell that in Stormont?

message 13: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments P.K. wrote: "All good analysis from Ian and Philip. I think the bottom line for May was that the statutory General Election would happen immediately after the two year period for concluding Article 50. Imagine ..."

Yes I should have added NI - voted to Remain but the main political parties in rest of UK do not compete there and Sinn Fein despite having 4 MPs receiving pay and allowances do not take up their seats. The current NI Assembly remains stagnated and unresolved and they would have probably had to have a 3rd vote anyway to try and resolve the unsolvable. I never thought I would be hankering back to McGuiness and Paisley.

Also did not cover Wales who voted to leave but have a predominantly Labour voting record. Expect gains there for Plais nationalists thus splitting the Labour vote more maybe allowing in Conservatives.

I actually think the continuing belligerence of SNP - Independence vote - was another push the national election will probably reduce SNP numbers.

message 14: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Yes, I agree with all of that - especially your last para. But NI is the priority problem because it is likely Westminster will have to take back control of Stormont before the election and what that will do to their voting intentions I cannot foresee. The intransigence of the Irish, on both sides, is akin to slow suicide. But the economics of the ireland is so completely tied up with that of the UK that I cannot see a way around the problem Brexit will bring. Do you remember that Ireland need two goes when they had a referendum on the EU? So there is a solid block there who might welcome Brexit and decide they can do it too. It would solve a lot of problems.

message 15: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Yes the Irish double referendum is like a lot of places where a vote is lost - ask again - have same argument from Lib Dems on Brexit and SNP on Scotland.

The Irish border treaties and freedom of movement all predate EU. BUt current crop of Sinn Fein and Unionist politicians seem to be heel bent on resurrecting trouble.

message 16: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments I think part of the issue with Northern Ireland revolves around the question of movement across the border with the Republic. With a little common sense between the parties, resident Irish could be issued with some identification that would let them continue as if nothing had happened re Brexit. After all, we can issue automatic charge devices for users of toll roads. Of course common sense in that part of Ireland has frequently been in short supply. I suppose another possibility would be to move the border. My guess is the Republic, though, would not really want all of the north, given the likely resurgence of the Troubles, with the other side revolting

message 17: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Yes, Ian you are right again. But the border is not only about people; it is more importantly about movement of goods between an EU and a non-EU country. That is intangibile as far as I can see. But I think, between us, we may be able to solve it all??

message 18: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments In my opinion, the issue of goods depends on the EU. The big advantage for the UK of being a member of the EU was the unimpeded flow of goods, and the UK will want to retain as much of that as it can. We shall have to wait and see what the EU's attitude is. If it is simply a tariff, again, that should be able to be dealt with smoothly and efficiently, after all, even now it has to be assured to comply with Brussels' regulations, but if it involves prohibition of certain goods, then it becomes more tricky.

message 19: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Just blogged on a few issues for the first time in weeks


Need to get writing too - not sure what about?

message 20: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments If you are up to do a heist (write about one), the offer still stands and we need a few more members for a crew (of authors)

message 21: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Nik wrote: "If you are up to do a heist (write about one), the offer still stands and we need a few more members for a crew (of authors)"

Missed that one - point me in right direction please NIk

message 22: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Sure, will do. Can't copypaste from mobile, but as soon as I get to the comp..

message 23: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Hi Philip. I looked at your blog; I'm not sure that's the best way to get back into writing, only thinking too much when you should be sleeping.
Good blog though. When I have time to stop struggling with a sticky point in my current book I might come back to you on some of those points. But I agree about the parsity of facts during electioneering; I've just listened to Corybin... we'll do this, we'll do that. Sounds like Trump or more of a fart.

Heist Nik? Was that the team effort about the heist of a bus?
I wondered why that hadn't been finished and am tempted to finish it myself. It was good fun.

Roughseasinthemed | 129 comments Philip wrote: "Just blogged on a few issues for the first time in weeks


Need to get writing too - not sure what about?"

I read that cos I'm following your blog. Thought you made interesting and pertinent points. Which probably really means I agreed with them.

message 25: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments P.K. wrote: "Hi Philip. I looked at your blog; I'm not sure that's the best way to get back into writing, only thinking too much when you should be sleeping.
Good blog though. When I have time to stop strugglin..."

Thanks for reading - want to be on Mars but can't get there yet rather than listen to the rubbish being spouted - Scottish referendum, 2015 election, referendum on Brexit, Trump, France and now another UK election. Appalling press coverage, worse expert coverage and as for candidates - should be banned for wanting to stand in the first place. No I don;t have a better system - think it was Churchill that said democracy was worst form of government - apart from all the others.

message 26: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Yeah. Bad deal. Like capitalism; f.....awful but can't find something to replace it.

message 27: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments P.K. wrote: "Yeah. Bad deal. Like capitalism; f.....awful but can't find something to replace it."

No need to replace at least in circumstances of limited resources, but to improve and adapt to progress' challenges might be necessary..

message 28: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Don't know about the bus, but this still stands and requires more participants:

message 29: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Nik wrote; "Don't know about the bus.."

Well, the qualifications rule me out on that one, Nik. Interesting idea though. It would need serious managing and editing to be successful. But there are a lot of creative people here and you could get something special from it. Good luck

message 30: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Now that the elections are imminent it's interesting to return back to this thread, conserved for two months.
If the initial intent was to receive a clear mandate to negotiate with EU, is it still likely to happen?
Which pulse will we see on stock-exchanges the day after?

message 31: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments It won't take long to find out. I just hope it's not a hung parliament wherein nobody gets a mandate.

message 32: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Ian wrote: "It won't take long to find out. I just hope it's not a hung parliament wherein nobody gets a mandate."

Don't think we'll have hung with Lib Dems acting as coalition party more likely for SNP to provide limited support for Labour - if its that close.

Some polls say say close others not. Pictures on TV for all parties just show supporters at meetings. Debates on TV have been poor. Pollsters claim they have better predictive models than 2010, 2015 and referendum I guess we'll find out in the early hours of Friday morning

message 33: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments No chance of a coalition, Nik. In 2015 on the eve of poll the Tory press killed off the Liberal Democrat party with headlines that we could have a coalition of Lib Dem/SNP. Here in the SW of England which was the stronghold of the Lib. Dems, they went from being ahead in the polls to be demolished. The same thing could happen now; a headline of an SNP/Labour victory will send most people racing to vote Tory.
But, ironically, it looks like the terrorists are going to affect the voting most; May's obvious anger and intent to deal with terrorism will probably make for a handsome majority as Corbyn looks like an appeaser by comparison.

message 34: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Regardless of political affiliation please vote even if for the least worse candidate. This is our democracy, demonstrate to the terrorists who would destroy it that we are stronger than them.

If you cannot stand a politician or a party then vote for an individual. I do not live in May, Corbyn or any other leader's constituency. I cannot vote for them even if I wanted to. I can only vote for the candidate on the ballot papar.

Please don't just vote for a party. Not all MPs are the same, many, despite my general criticism, are good honest people deserving of your vote. Even if they do not win political parties do take note of trends - look at the influence of UKIP with one MP - disagree with them or not their influence is plain to see.

So vote - people have died to give you that right - exercise it.

message 35: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Well said, Philip. Politicians are human-beings too, with failings and assets. They do their best, as do most of us, to honour their reponsibilities despite the sea of ingratitude and often offensive comment that assails them. Think of local councillors, someone has to do what they do but how many of their critics would do the job? Those people who don't vote, just take and don't contribute, don't have the brains to ask 'Where would we be without politicians?'
Whatever the result today, I hope everybody, everybody, will accept it and get on with it and not descend to the mire that is happening now in the US.

message 36: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments Good luck, guys

message 37: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments By now (i.e. when I am writing) the voting will be starting. I agree that you should vote for somebody. We all have our different reasons for how we choose our vote, but that is what it is all supposed to be about. As Nik says, good luck for a clear outcome. The last thing the UK needs now is a hung parliament.

message 38: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Good morning, good evening, good night. Terrible news re our election. It is a Hung parliament. Disaster for Brexit, disaster for Conservative party, disaster for Teresa May. She and her party ran an unbelievably bad campaign and have paid for it. Cheers to the Labour Party for bringing other issues to the table. Their results, mostly holding their seats, emphasised the feeling in the country that eight years of austerity has made for a huge portion of unhappy voters. The Remainers too felt they had an axe to grind and in some areas did so. Where the Conservative Party lost out in 2015 in the major urban areas, they have failed to convert anyone.
The Now is; can Teresa May survive as PM. Will she want to?
But Europe won't be smiling; it means Brexit will be postponed and they will be equally frustrated by the whole business.
Watch this space, there is going to be a lot ammo coming this way.

message 39: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 11511 comments The elections results in retrospective prove again that perfect is the enemy of good. Cameron sought people's support for staying, May sought a solid mandate, both returned empty-handed...

message 40: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments Never trust the people, Nik. When will politicians learn?

message 41: by Mehreen (new)

Mehreen Ahmed (mehreen2) | 1910 comments P.K. wrote: "Never trust the people, Nik. When will politicians learn?"

I'll second that. Politicians never learn. But people like you and me die because of their foolhardiness.

message 42: by Philip (last edited Jun 09, 2017 02:22AM) (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments May got exactly what she deserved. 3 unbelievably bad decisions in under 12 months:

1. No general election after becoming p.m and failing to seek support across parties for Brexit process after referendum and Cameron's resignation
2. Triggering Brexit process but not having election
3. Changing mind and having election - again this could have been agreed with other parties based on the Brexit timetable - i.e. the alleged reason of a stable government to agree deal on the timeline

Kudos to Corbyn although losing an election is a funny way of claiming victory. Big losers are SNP but are still majority.

Luckily I was away for a few weeks of the campaign but seldom have I seen such a disastrous rabble as the Conservative attempt - again totally controlled by May's cohorts. Contrast with Scottish campaign run by Scottish Conservatives 1 MP to 13 is staggering.

If anything proves that May is not fit to be P.M it should be the above - as if her record as an appalling Home Secretary was any justification for making her leader.

Now what - the country will have to carry on with May (or have 4 weeks of leadership election) for a period but expect an autumn election - no party can govern without a more formalised agreement as 2010-15 showed - at least Gov was stable - unlike Lib-Lab pact of 70's. Despite Progressive Alliance discussion Labour would need DUP as well as all the other parties to pass any legislation unless they expect Conservatives to vote for their policies - nationalise railways for example?


Europe laughs until they realise it damages the EU too.

Trump laughs - if he can stop tweeting about Comey for long enough

Markets had a good night on speculation, whilst claiming they want stability - no they don't they want turmoil because they can gamble for big changes.

Still will keep the political pundits and and reporters happy dominating the airwaves.

Meanwhile - Syria, Gulf States, Turkey, N.Korea all continue and I'm sure ISIS or their supporters will be plotting next outrage.

message 43: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments P.K., you are wrong if you think Brexit will be delayed (or the BBC was talking nonsense when they quoted leading EU politicians as saying the clock is ticking and the 2-year period has been set. The EU wants to get on with it; the problem is, they know Britain simply has a disunited approach to it. One of the unfortunate effects of negotiations is you always lose unless you can say no at some point. Now, Britain can't, but it probably can't say yes to anything either. The EU knows that, so they can't trust anything that whoever the UK sends says.

What I find interesting is that Corbyn essentially promised an end to austerity, and had big spending on his mind. He also promised tax increases, so he was sort of responsible. I have no idea whether he let on how big the tax increases would be, but nobody seemed to care. So somehow the election seems to have brought in the worst of both options. I tend to agree with Philip - there seems to be little choice other than to have another election in the not too distant future.

message 44: by Philip (last edited Jun 10, 2017 02:29AM) (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments One of the problems of most electorates and the promise of jam tomorrow is misunderstanding how the tax system works and what can really be obtained by raising taxes. The Lib-Dems were at least partly honest by stating that there needed to be a rise in basic taxation to generate the funds needed for higher spending without just adding to the debt. Remember our UK debt interest payments:

" (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income)"

This is roughly the same as the defence budget 2/3 of education spending and 1/3 of NHS.

If we want more money for these areas (or anything else) don't treat public spending as a never ending credit card. The difficult austerity measures of 2010-15 were designed to stop increasing this borrowing and failed. The Labour party campaigned (somewhat successfully whilst still losing) for an end to austerity but unless tax intake goes up substantially the debt will rise as day to day borrowing increases i.e. we add to the debt.

It doesn't mater what you borrow for (infrastructure, deficit, pay) it all adds up to debt - a failing of virtually every country in the world. It;s called living beyond our means - although in most of advanced world it is its not paying our bills.

The other issue on tax is the fallacy that higher earners are not paying their fair share. 25% of £100k a year is £25k. 25% of £20k is £4,000 - ignoring allowances and higher payments (First £11k free of tax for both and higher rate coming in at higher salary)) the higher rate tax payer already pays £21k a year more for the same services. So the richer members of society (everyone that pays tax) already give subsidies to the lower paid.

The old taie of the taxpayers should always be born in mind - yes its glib. For 10 taxpayers substitute ten companies with corporation tax

10 drinkers in a bar who decide to settle their £100 weekly beer bill roughly the same way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men (the poorest) paid nothing; the fifth paid £1; the sixth £3; the seventh £7; the eighth £12; the ninth £18; and the 10th man, the richest, paid £59.

Then the barman decided to give them a £20 discount for being good customers. The group wanted to continue to pay the new £80 bill the same way as before. While the first four men still drank for free, the other six divided up the £20 windfall by following the progressive principle of the tax system. So the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing, making a 100 per cent saving; the sixth man paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33 per cent saving); the seventh man paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28 per cent saving); the eighth £9 instead of £12 (a 25 per cent saving); and the ninth £14 instead of £18 (a 22 per cent saving). The 10th man paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16 per cent saving).

The men then began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got £10 – the wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” said the first four men, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new system exploits the poor.” So the other nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up. The next week he didn’t show for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when they came to pay, they discovered they didn’t have enough money between them to pay even half the bill.

message 45: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 1942 comments CNN was just reporting "Theresa May visiting the Queen!" As if they're suggesting she's being called to the woodshed, but when they finally get around with it, it sounds more like a procedural/ceremonial visit...not even you Brits are safe from the sensationalism of American media.

message 46: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments She went to ask permission, as the leader of the largest party after the election, to form a government. Which she has since announced using Northern Ireland based DUP support to get a majority. If she had no support she could still try to rule until a vote of confidence. IF she didn't think she could her job is to advise queen on who else might and then Corbyn would have gone.

So May stays for now as PM with Conservative minority government supported by DUP on ad-hoc basis. Until it all falls apart and we have another election probably in October.

message 47: by Leonie (new)

Leonie (leonierogers) | 1579 comments Ah yes, we Australians are familiar with the minority government with the support of minor parties and independents. You have our deepest sympathies.

message 48: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2190 comments Forgot to throw in turnout. Although pleasing the turnout went up 3% since 2015 we till ended up with only 69% bothering to vote or deciding to vote. i.e. nearly 1/3 of electorate did not care or could not decide. One result to come but it's not going to change the outcome except for those individual candidates

message 49: by P.K. (new)

P.K. Davies | 338 comments not much to add really, Philip has said it all. In an election most of, infact all of electorate don't understand tax, don't know how the sums fall, don't know the cost of anything, don't know how much we have to yield per annum to service the debt mountain. neither do most of the politicians. People sometimes believe what the politicians tell them. Bad move.
Ian, I'm not wrong about delaying Brexit; we choose the pace of doing it and already several EU people have acknowledged it will stall things. But, of course, the clock is ticking for the two-year negotion period. It just means, if we ever get a government in that time, that they will have less time to negotiate. I agree with Philip about another election. I said so earlier. I think six months is about right - but that depends if the Conservatives can actually get to agree amongst themselves for someone to succeed May. Very unlikely.

message 50: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 7797 comments P.K., we may be at cross purposes. My statement that you can't delay Brexit was based on the two-year clock. Of course you might not turn up in ten days, or whatever, but as you say, that only makes everything that much harder when you do. The real problem, as I see it, is whoever is the government, will desperately need every vote - and that gives fringe voters exceptional power. Corbyn could show himself a statesman here - he could promise the negotiator Labour's vote on Brexit only assuming they could agree on what they were trying to negotiate. The fringes are now dead.

The tax example above is quite a good one.

« previous 1
back to top