General Election 2017: The Results and Aftermath

[Dave1987]

Would a repeat election resolve the situation? I can't see Labour's vote really going up, indeed the prospect of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott being even remotely realistic may shift some people to the Conservatives, which could cause a disproportionate number of seats to change to blue. But another possibility is the result remains the same.

Likewise, removing May doesn't necessarily restore order. There could be a bloody leadership contest, which isn't good for the country, especially with the Brexit talks going on. Meanwhile, Labour is not a government in waiting by any means, the numbers don't add up, and the prospect of some kind of deal between the minor parties is distinctly unappealing, and would almost certainly be inherently unstable. A rubbish situation whatever way!

May will be ripped to pieces by the EU. All that posturing before Article 50 was triggered was just stupid. She should have taken a pragmatic approach rather than what she did. She will be even more isolated with world leaders than she was before. Get rid of her and get rid of her now!

 

[bramling]

We can move forward once May goes. Until then she deserves all the criticism and mockery she gets. She has been a disaster ever since she started the Brexit posturing and has got steadily worse and worse. She is anything but "strong and stable". And using the "coalition of chaos" line is really gonna bite her in the arse with this chaotic ad hoc coalition with the DUP (who are every bit as dodgy as what Corbyn is/was)

I'd really prefer the DUP not to be involved. They're not really relevant to the UK as a whole, and there is certainly potential for the situation to introduce complications in Northern Ireland. But at the moment it does seem like the least-worst option, indeed perhaps the *only* realistic option available at this moment in time.

Unfortunately removing May doesn't resolve that for me - it doesn't change the election result. It doesn't make Labour any more attractive or less chilling, or make the numbers add up for the "coalition of chaos", and it doesn't automatically give the Conservatives a better leader. The whole situation is simply a mess all round.

 

[takno]

Would a repeat election resolve the situation? I can't see Labour's vote really going up, indeed the prospect of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott being even remotely realistic may shift some people to the Conservatives, which could cause a disproportionate number of seats to change to blue. But another possibility is the result remains the same.

The opinion polls aren't really supporting that right now. Labour has continued to move ahead of the Conservatives, and Theresa May's personal rating is down to -36. Some people were scared of Corbyn taking over, but they're increasingly just as scared of May carrying on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would a repeat election resolve the situation? I can't see Labour's vote really going up, indeed the prospect of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott being even remotely realistic may shift some people to the Conservatives, which could cause a disproportionate number of seats to change to blue. But another possibility is the result remains the same.

Likewise, removing May doesn't necessarily restore order. There could be a bloody leadership contest, which isn't good for the country, especially with the Brexit talks going on. Meanwhile, Labour is not a government in waiting by any means, the numbers don't add up, and the prospect of some kind of deal between the minor parties is distinctly unappealing, and would almost certainly be inherently unstable. A rubbish situation whatever way!

May was decried by going to the country when she had no need to. So appears to say people of all political persuasions.

So why should she go to the country again, until the political situation forces her to do so.

 

[takno]

May was decried by going to the country when she had no need to. So appears to say people of all political persuasions.

So why should she go to the country again, until the political situation forces her to do so.

I'd a surprised if she did, but an unstable coalition with the DUP only just tips her into a majority. If some issue like Europe where the Tory party is divided suddenly became a key issue for some reason then she could easily be defeated. There is of course also the risk of defections, and if the situation persists for a couple of years then by-elections alone could eliminate the majority

 

[Butts]

To be fair, that may be in part because the LibDem candidate and MP throughout the Blair years was Mike Hancock, who I believe was very well known locally. He had previously been prominent locally in the Labour Party before joining the SDP when the SDP was formed - so was arguably in a good position to attract voters who would normally have voted Labour. And of course the LibDems were a lot more popular nationally in those days.

Indeed primarily for bedding young ladies - have you not read the clippings during your research ?

 

[Senex]

I'd really prefer the DUP not to be involved. They're not really relevant to the UK as a whole, and there is certainly potential for the situation to introduce complications in Northern Ireland. But at the moment it does seem like the least-worst option, indeed perhaps the *only* realistic option available at this moment in time.

Unfortunately removing May doesn't resolve that for me - it doesn't change the election result. It doesn't make Labour any more attractive or less chilling, or make the numbers add up for the "coalition of chaos", and it doesn't automatically give the Conservatives a better leader. The whole situation is simply a mess all round.

I too would prefer the DUP not to be involved because they're not really relevant to the UK as a whole. But I wonder how many of those objecting to any DUP involvement would also object to any SNP arrangement with Labour, on the same grounds, that the SNP are not really relevant to the UK as a whole.

 

[najaB]

I too would prefer the DUP not to be involved because they're not really relevant to the UK as a whole. But I wonder how many of those objecting to any DUP involvement would also object to any SNP arrangement with Labour, on the same grounds, that the SNP are not really relevant to the UK as a whole.

The SNP, for all their faults, are at least relevant to some six million people, rather than a little more than half of 600,000.

 

[sk688]

I can understand the sentiments, however as a country we need to move forward. Politicians come and go, some staying longer than others, however Britain is still here, and needs strong and stable government. Scoring cheap points against Theresa May doesn't really help anyone IMO.

New poll, a Survation one, actually puts Labour three points ahead of the Tories now

 

[northwichcat]

I wouldn't say the Conservatives under May are that far away from the centre ground

I don't agree. While a centre ground party wouldn't be throwing money at local councils they wouldn't be forcing local councils to cut their budgets so much that they axe a subsidy for a bus service serving a local hospital or be proposing a 'dementia tax' without first reversing their inheritance tax cuts. Neither would they be freezing benefits - if benefits are there to meet essential living costs they would rise at the rate of inflation each year.

Their flagship centre ground policy (the changes to income tax personal allowance) is one the Lib Dems forced them to do as part of the coalition agreement and the Conservatives keep trying to take the credit for it.

 

[northwichcat]

May was decried by going to the country when she had no need to. So appears to say people of all political persuasions.

So why should she go to the country again, until the political situation forces her to do so.

If you recall there was criticism of the Conservative party for changing their leader and not calling an election, especially considering Cameron criticised Labour for doing that when Blair stood down.

Why did May leave it almost a year before calling an election. Was it because the Conservatives had no plan for Brexit in 2016 despite being the party who called the referendum? Was it because Labour's and the SNP's ratings were going down and May saw an opportunity which she then threw away? I suspect it's a combination of these, which is why May was criticised for calling an early election.

Nigel Evans recently said any voter with grey hair and any sense would not have voted Conservative after reading their 2017 manifesto.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Indeed primarily for bedding young ladies - have you not read the clippings during your research ?

One of the young women he "helped" is now married to Brexit Bully Arron Banks.

Funny how these things happen.

I wouldn't say the Conservatives under May are that far away from the centre ground

It depends where we define the centre ground. My view is that the "centre" has shifted significantly to the right in the last decade. We've seen that with Corbyn being dismissed as a mad Militant Communist for policies that aren't so very different from the policies of the SDP under the Gang of Four. Derek Hatton he ain't.

I wouldn't say the Conservatives are centrist at all. A party that advocates the privatisation of everything is not a centrist party.

 

[northwichcat]

With Corbyn as PM you get McDonnell as chancellor and that gives me a nervous shiver.

Except possibly if the government is Labour in coalition with another party or parties. Another party leader could demand positions or in the top team or at least less left wing people from the Labour party in the top team before agreeing to a coalition.

 

[najaB]

A party that advocates the privatisation of everything is not a centrist party.

They can be. It all depends on the terms of the privatisation. For example they could limit the number of shares that can be bought by any individual or corporation.

 

[takno]

I too would prefer the DUP not to be involved because they're not really relevant to the UK as a whole. But I wonder how many of those objecting to any DUP involvement would also object to any SNP arrangement with Labour, on the same grounds, that the SNP are not really relevant to the UK as a whole.

EVEL means that MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland both sit out votes on English matters. Reserved matters by definition apply equally to the devolved nations, so I think the question of being a nationally focused party is rather moot. On national issues the SNP may well want a vote on independence, but have never shown any inclination to do anything to harm the overall country Scotland is still a part of. Indeed you could make a case that by steadfastly opposing Brexit they showed more determination to act in the national interest than Conservatives or even Jeremy 80% Corbyn.

I'm not sure PC even advocate independence anymore do they? They may focus on Welsh affairs, but for the number of MPs they brought to the table they'd be lucky to expect a minor ministerial position. More likely they'd get a promise to upgrade some roads or railways in North Wales, which isn't very different from the horse-trading you might do in English marginal consituencies.

The DUP are different because they are part of the NI peace process, and are politically quite removed from the beliefs of the mainstream parties, not because they are from a devolved nation.

 

[fowler9]

One of the young women he "helped" is now married to Brexit Bully Arron Banks.

Funny how these things happen.



It depends where we define the centre ground. My view is that the "centre" has shifted significantly to the right in the last decade. We've seen that with Corbyn being dismissed as a mad Militant Communist for policies that aren't so very different from the policies of the SDP under the Gang of Four. Derek Hatton he ain't.

I wouldn't say the Conservatives are centrist at all. A party that advocates the privatisation of everything is not a centrist party.

I agree, the Tories are not centrist and Labour are very far from hard left.

 

[sk688]

I agree, the Tories are not centrist and Labour are very far from hard left.

There does seem to be a wave of right wing , ex UKIP populism sweeping the Tories , but under Cameron ,they were more of a centrist party , but since the referendum , they do seem to have gone far off to the right

 

[Senex]

There does seem to be a wave of right wing , ex UKIP populism sweeping the Tories , but under Cameron ,they were more of a centrist party , but since the referendum , they do seem to have gone far off to the right

The right certainly seems to have come to dominate the Conservative Party since the referendum -- maybe always there but kept down a little under Cameron and Osborne. And Labour has certainly moved considerably to the left since the days of Blair and Brown. So there is nothing left in the centre for those of us who would like a centre-slightly-left or centre-slightly-right party to be able to consider voting for. It might be good to have the same sort of peaceful political revolution that France has just seen, but is it even conceivable that something similar could happen in this country where everything is set up of the basis that someone must propose and then someone else must immediately totally oppose?

 

[backontrack]

I'm so glad to see Julian Brazier gone

 

[backontrack]

And the Conservatives are preventing The Queen from giving a speech next year

Strong and stable, everyone. Strong and stable.

I think this is where UK politics becomes the play Charles III.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm not so certain the Tories under Cameron were as centrist as people seem to think. Socially yeah (I'll give him that, I can't have seen many other Tory PM's getting same sex marriage passed the commons for example), but economically? Using the global crash as an excuse for ideologically based austerity doesn't sound very centre ground to me. But as others have said there has also certainly been a lurch to the right in social policy since the referendum too.

 

[takno]

I'm not so certain the Tories under Cameron were as centrist as people seem to think. Socially yeah (I'll give him that, I can't have seen many other Tory PM's getting same sex marriage passed the commons for example), but economically? Using the global crash as an excuse for ideologically based austerity doesn't sound very centre ground to me. But as others have said there has also certainly been a lurch to the right in social policy since the referendum too.

They described it in reassuring terms about being "sensible", and they were helped by the failure of the Labour party to express any real counter-argument, but what Cameron and Osborne pulled off was a truly radical right-wing economic policy. Even socially they were mostly only liberal because of the Liberal Democrats. Gay marriage was mildly impressive, but mostly reflected that in certain Conservative circles being gay is quite mainstream now - other people who don't look and act like them and who aren't their friends were still effortlessly marginalized. In particular they let May run riot with her attacks on people who marry foreigners, and an absolute shambles of a drugs policy.

Since the referendum they've lost any ability to be "on-message", so people are spotting them for what they are.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Gay marriage was mildly impressive, but mostly reflected that in certain Conservative circles being gay is quite mainstream now.

Would Justine Greening be an example of this?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The right certainly seems to have come to dominate the Conservative Party since the referendum -- maybe always there but kept down a little under Cameron and Osborne. And Labour has certainly moved considerably to the left since the days of Blair and Brown. So there is nothing left in the centre for those of us who would like a centre-slightly-left or centre-slightly-right party to be able to consider voting for.

The right were dominating the Conservatives under Cameron and Osborne, they were many things but centrist they were not. Economically Cameron and Osborne were far-right, privatising everything, pulling down the welfare state. Their agenda was, and is, heading well towards libertarianism.

The legalisation of gay marriage was the positive side of that libertarianism, but don't confuse it for centrism.

May's record as Home Secretary showed the more authoritarian side of the right-wing of the party, vilifying foreigners and poor people. The restrictions on work permits, deporting people who earn less than £35,000, the "racist van", the abolition of the Border Agency. The creation of the Border Force and Immigration Enforcement, and the psuedo-military insignia and uniforms that the two bodies now have, just sums up where the Tories were and are going.

It's that authoritarian side of the party that are in the ascendancy now. Cameron was socially liberal but economically far-right; May appears to be much more socially authoritarian but economically more towards the centre.

ETA As for Labour, I genuinely don't think they have moved that far back towards the left after Blair. Both Corbyn and Miliband have been targeted as "communists" but neither of them are: Corbyn's "Trotskyite" manifesto wasn't noticeably different to that of the SDP under the Gang of Four. I know people like to compare him to Michael Foot, but the truth is very different. Economically Corbyn is very much in the centre ground, but he is liberal when it comes to law and order, etc.

Cameron's talent was pushing economically far-right ideas through under a veneer of centrism, and Blair's talent was pushing economically left-wing (Sure Start, minimum wage, tax credits) ideas through as centrist. Blair was never as right wing as people believe, and Cameron was never as centrist as people believe.

 

[northwichcat]

Would Justine Greening be an example of this?

Justine Greening is an example of how poorly represented some groups are within the Conservative party. As she's a gay woman the party didn't want to demote her to the back benches despite the £60m of public money she poured down the drain by not doing her job on West Coast franchise bidding properly.

It might interest you to know that Cheshire East Councillor Stewart Gardiner is gay. A number of people thought he should have been nominated as Conservative candidate for the safe seat of Tatton at the recent elections but the Conservative Party put forward a candidate from outside the area who voted against gay rights (Esther McVey) and found a Labour safe seat for Stewart Gardiner to be candidate for (Birkenhead.) McVey resigned from her job to take up the Tatton seat, while Gardiner was employed by former Warrington South MP David Mowat so not only did Gardiner not gain a MP's job he lost his existing job.

 

[Senex]

ETA As for Labour, I genuinely don't think they have moved that far back towards the left after Blair. Both Corbyn and Miliband have been targeted as "communists" but neither of them are: Corbyn's "Trotskyite" manifesto wasn't noticeably different to that of the SDP under the Gang of Four. I know people like to compare him to Michael Foot, but the truth is very different. Economically Corbyn is very much in the centre ground, but he is liberal when it comes to law and order, etc.

We shall have to agree to differ on where Corbyn and his own Gang of Four (MsDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry, and Milne) stand -- I see them as very much more of a threat than you do. (Though I happily admit, as I have said before, that Corbyn ran almost a one-man election campaign brilliantly, in a totally different league from May's one-woman disaster campaign.)

 

[northwichcat]

According to Sky News the DUP had said during their talks with May she gave the impression of being weak and unable to negotiate.

 

[Domh245]

The Queens Speech is underway, supposedly quite thin on the ground in terms of content. At least we got a quip from the Beast of Bolsover

 

[Domh245]

A total of 27 acts, 8 of which are related to Brexit, and a number of which are carry overs. Lots of the controversial stuff from the manifesto has been cut out. No doubt the Queen will now be in a rush to make it to Ascot!

 

[AlterEgo]

No energy price cap in the Queen's Speech.