Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
It is my view that whoever can prevent the brexit or remain vote fragmenting least will do very well, and can Labour prevent a diluting of their vote to the Lib Dems? can the tories prevent UKIP splitting the strong brexit vote? There will be shocks and they will come fast and some big names well may lose their seats. In my town the Tory MP has won since before I would have been able to vote, yet it was a strong remain town producing a decisive remain vote. I think our MP may for the first time ever get a little worried.
1) large Tory majority. Corbyn resigns, the Labour MPs do not allow a left wing candidate to stand like they did with Corbyn, a moderate/Blairite/soft Tory leader elected who wins the approval of Murdoch and the rest of the media.
2) small Tory majority. Corbyn resigns etc. but her opponents in the Tory party are still on her case and possibly calling for her resignation for failing to deliver a big enough win
3) Tories lose. May resigns.
May has announced there aren't going to be any TV debates, that makes her look scared to discuss the issues.
A high 40% of the country voted to stay, for me this would actually be a situation where I would vote for a 1 idea party.
Even if they lose there will still be a party with some of the strong ideals to fight for in the Parliament.
50% of the Tories want Exit / Labour is a Mess (+ unions like Exit) / SNP is a 1 idea Party / UKIP is a 1 idea party.
We need one Party that supports the 40%....
And I think baracks summed it up very well with this post.
"The general election will be about the "type" of brexit not brexit happening v not IMO"
The Lib Dems will focus on winning back constituencies where the Remain vote was strong that they lost in 2010 and 2015 or where they traditionally come second. They're not going to have much success trying to win in constituencies where they've not had much support before.
Having won Richmond Park back they'll be aiming at the other seats in the leafier bits of South West London and out into Surrey, Sussex, etc. Who knows they might even win Maidenhead (53.9% Remain) and then Theresa May will be out!
And the country answered "Not you, mate".
What we actually need when not talking about a 1 subject vote is Labour to sort themselves out.
SNP / UKIP / Tories are the only winning parites at the moment. Two Nationalist and the Tories... ;weep
Oh and Yvette Cooper just called May a liar because a) she said there wouldn't be an early election and b) because she says that parliament is blocking Brexit despite 3/4 of the Commons and 2/3 of the Lords voting for Article 50.
Tears before bedtime....
Of course politicians will take advantage of their opposition's weakness but I think it's unhealthy because you have to fit in campaigning, raising awareness about voter registration/importance in voting in some constituencies, tackle voter fatigue etc. I guess this might all come across as kind of academic but I think it does matter because I think this contributes to people viewing politics with such disdain.
The EU did not exist in 1975, we voted to continue membership of the Common Market and EEC - and actually that referendum was not legally binding either but was agreed on face value to be the will of the British people whichever way it went and the final say - as the EU stay/leave Referendum was. The 1975 vote was supposed to be a mutual trading group - I don't remember anything being said back then about signing away out sovereignty, allowing free movement of people across boarders, creating an unelected commission to dictate our laws etc. (if there had been I believe it would have been a no vote). Those things came about through successive Government (on all sides) signing ever more binding agreements and treaty's without the consent of the British people.
Could it actually be done in time?
There's an assumption of deemed consent, unless you think every single decision, with all the relevant small print, has to either be part of a manifesto commitment at a GE, or put to a referendum? In which case, no doubt, you'll be all in favour of Parliament (at the very least) having a say on the small print of the Brexit negotiations, as they proceed.
Added to which, while some of the agreement were 'ever more binding' (not quite sure exactly what that means- surely an agreement is either binding or not?) some were to opt out or secure derogations. So perhaps could be called ever less binding ;hmm
I personally feel that most Europeans would be happier with the principle ideas of that version rather than what exists today; I think most people in Europe think of themselves as being French or German or Italian etc rather than being European, but that doesn't seem to be the way the EU wants to head.
In October 1922 the Conservatives won a 73 seat majority thanks partly due to the Liberals being split into two parties but Bonar-Law was forced to retire as Prime Minister after being diagnosed with terminal throat cancer after only 211 days in the office, the shortest term and the only PM born outside the UK.
His successor Stanley Baldwin called an election In December 1923 to give him a mandate and it backfired spectacularly, the Liberals were back together, the Tories lost 86 seats, Labour were the second biggest party and formed a government with the support of the Liberals.
It didn't last long, in October 1924 the Tories won a stonking 210 majority after a vote of "no confidence" in the Labour government, the Liberals were split again and the Daily Mail published the Zinoviev Letter - a forgery that suggested that Labour were supported by the Soviet Union - four days before the election.
In 1951 Clem Atlee held an election just 1 year and 8 months after the last as Labour only had a 5 seat majority and he hoped to increase it. Instead Winston Churchill's Tories won a 20 seat majority and Labour didn't win another election for 13 years. This was also the worst election for the old Liberals who were reduced to just 6 seats.
It was the same story in 1966, Harold Wilson held an election 1 year and 5 months after the last one because Labour only had a 4 seat majority but this time they won by 96 beating Ted Heath's Tories with the Liberals winning 12 seats. Back then Parliament was very much like TV, only three parties had MPs and you could only get three channels.
On 28 February 1974 Labour won the most seats but were 10 short of a majority and so Wilson formed the "Lib-Lab Pact" with Jeremy Thorpe's 14 Liberals. Just 224 days later on 10 October Labour won a majority of 3 seats, they only time we've ever had two elections in one year.
Who'd've thunk it ;biggrin
They haven't changed much in nearly a century, have they. ;angry
You'd have though he would be getting his team to check their facts a bit better given this is not the first time ( or second, or third even.....), as all this does is damage his and the parties credibility.
Nothing good can come from it.
Nobody will shift their position (party-political wise) at this point, based on education.
It is an issue too nuanced and complex to be used in an election campaign, imo. You really need issues that can be presented as broad-brush, headline-type soundbites.
I'm not saying the voters can't understand and cope with a complex issue - but in an election, there's no place for subtlety. Sadly.
My hope is that Labour make the move to work with the Lib Dems and greens and tactically step aside when necessary to concentrate the anti tory vote in marginal seats and remain voting areas to prevent the tory majority becoming too big. When labour have the best chance a Lab candidate should be the only one of the three and the same for the others. Sadly with no real opposition thanks to corbyn we stand little chance of ousting the Tories so the tactic must be to prevent the majority being too big.
As an aside I think May is unstable, something about her when she speaks in public, she is too uneasy, I think she is a strategist rather than a leader, not meant to be out front, and it's taking it's toll. This is why she will not debate as they will tear her apart when she is put off balance, without Nick Timothy there to hold her up. I hope they empty chair her as that will look really bad.
However, I think a better campaign could be run on anti-austerity, and placing the blame for the economic situation that (in a large part) led many to vote for Brexit firmly (and correctly) where it belongs. There is obviously a huge amount of anger and frustration about the economy/unequal distribution of wealth/low pay etc ... and if Labour could tap into that, and get the message across that it is a result of Tory policies, while they-Labour-would do something about, I think they might have more success than banging on about class sizes.
In other words, back to basics.
To remind you:
The government must make a plan to bring air pollution down to legal levels, which they have been in breach of since 2010. (That's seven years and counting.)
They dragged their feet for 5 years.
In April 2015 the Supreme Court ordered the govt to get a plan published by the end of the year.
That plan was thrown out by the High Court in November 2016, being so bad as to be practically illegal. In its ruling, they also pointed out that the govt had knowingly used dodgy data to support its over-optimistic claims.
They were given until Monday 24th April (ie next Monday) to publish a new plan.
Last night they lodged an appeal to delay the deadline and let them bring forward a draft plan in June, after the election.
By the governments own figures, air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths and £27.5bn in costs every year,.
As I said, seven years and counting.
;angry ;angry ;angry