Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

[DynamicSpirit]

Ok, quick reply as I'm off out. Corbyn was elected leader fair and square by the rules that the Labour Party has - twice. It has been said many times that the Labour MP's do not reflect the will of members of the Party.

Well firstly, it's the job of Labour MPs to represent their constituents. All their constituents, not just party members. (Something I wish a certain Theresa May would remember when she keeps acting as if the concerns of 48% of the population don't matter one jot and can be totally ignored, all the while spinning it as the country supposedly coming together.) MPs are not delegates - they are representatives. That's for the very good reason that they are paid to spend a lot more time studying issues than your average party member (of any party) has. So there are lots of reasons why it may be quite reasonable for MPs to sometimes act in ways that many party members wouldn't have chosen.

Secondly, 10-15 years ago, exactly the same could have been said of Jeremy Corbyn. But you don't seem to be using the same language to describe Corbyn's behaviour then. You seem to be describing it more in terms of him standing up for his principles. Why the difference? Are those Labour MPs who have made it clear when they disagree with Corbyn not also standing up for their principles?

(For what it's worth though, I do agree with you to the extent that perhaps some MPs could have shown a bit more discipline in keeping differences less public, though it is a difficult balance to strike since democracy works by people being free to air their opinions).

The media gave Mandelson plenty of airtime when he said he was working hard every day to undermine Corbyn, is that really fair? Did Corbyn or any of the other rebels say something similar about Blair? Again, showing total lack of respect for the membership.

Actually, if you go to the text of the interview, as far as I can see, Mandelson didn't exactly say he was trying to undermine Corbyn - that's an interpretation that was put on his remarks by some of the media but is not there in his original words. That interpretation seems to have been gleefully picked up by various Corbyn-supporting and left-wing commentators (in an attempt to undermine Mandelson?)

 

[bramling]

Me. And my household income isn't even remotely close to 70k.

I meant people on, near or above 70k. If I were Corbyn I simply wouldn't be advocating something blanket enough to automatically switch off a percentage of the electorate.

In fact, he's more or less gifting these votes to the Conservatives as people think "I'd better vote Conservative to *make sure* Labour don't get in, so my taxes don't go up".

 

[EM2]

In fact, he's more or less gifting these votes to the Conservatives as people think "I'd better vote Conservative to *make sure* Labour don't get in, so my taxes don't go up".

Well, it depends on your principles, doesn't it?
If you believe in the maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', which I would think many Labour supporters do, then you would surely be happy to pay a little more tax.

 

[Moonshot]

Well, it depends on your principles, doesn't it?
If you believe in the maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', which I would think many Labour supporters do, then you would surely be happy to pay a little more tax.

So bearing in mind that one of the pledges is to re nationalise the railways, what would that actual mean for a train driver in terms of both salary increase and tax paid for the next 5 years ?

 

[HSTEd]

But if he doesn't propose any specific tax increases he will be pilloried for not demonstrating where the money for his programme comes from.

 

[Y961 XBU]

What do people think about the SNP losing seats? as i bet some scots are sick of hearing about Independence and will vote against the SNP because of it

 

[Bald Rick]

Leaving aside the current party leaders for a minute (hard, I know!) do you think that we are now too fixated on the leader of the party? It wasn't always thus in my lifetime. When did it change? During the Thatcher years?

I'd say since media became truly globalised; the last 25 years or so.

Like it or not, there are a lot of 'undecideds' out there who don't give two hoots about their local constituency MP, won't even know what party they represent, and have no clue about party policies or manifestos.

But they will see the national news, and cast their vote based on who they want see representing our country in discussions with Putin, Merkel, Trump (!) and other world leaders. Even more so with Brexit. Which is why Jezza has no chance. (And also why Milliband lost the last one).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There seems to be a groundswell of opinion that a large number of Labour MPs don't support their leader. Those are the pledges of said leader.
If MPs do not support him, ergo they do not support his pledges.
If they do support his pledges, ergo they support him.

So, if why would people (not you) still not vote for Labour with Corbyn as leader if these are his pledges and they agree with them?

Your logic doesn't stand up. It's perfectly possible to support the policies that a leader is espousing while strongly preferring that the party had a different leader (for reasons, for example of ability to get the message out, concern at leadership style etc.)

 

[Bald Rick]

What do people think about the SNP losing seats? as i bet some scots are sick of hearing about Independence and will vote against the SNP because of it

This has been discussed up thread. In short most opinion was that SNP will lose a few, maybe as many as a dozen, but still be by far the largest party in Scotland. My punt is that the Tories get more votes than Labour north of the border.

 

[Moonshot]

But if he doesn't propose any specific tax increases he will be pilloried for not demonstrating where the money for his programme comes from.

Indeed......

 

[ainsworth74]

This has been discussed up thread. In short most opinion was that SNP will lose a few, maybe as many as a dozen, but still be by far the largest party in Scotland. My punt is that the Tories get more votes than Labour north of the border.

Angus Robertson said as much during one of today's debates. Words to the effect of 'it's between us and the Tories in Scotland'.

 

[bramling]

What do people think about the SNP losing seats? as i bet some scots are sick of hearing about Independence and will vote against the SNP because of it

This may be why Sturgeon doesn't appear too happy about this election. The SNP have virtually nothing to gain, lots to lose, and the impact of her recent rhetoric on independence is as yet unknown and untested.

The situation in Scotland is now rather depressing. If you're left-wing and pro-independence then SNP is probably the natural vote. However if you're left-wing and anti-independence then who do you vote for? *If* the latter group find themselves tied down to voting Conservative, however reluctantly, the SNP could find their vote share start declining. Whether it's enough to lose seats is another matter, but Sturgeon doesn't want to be on any kind of declining path, as it weakens the case for independence, which is what she lives and breathes for, at any cost.

 

[bramling]

Well, it depends on your principles, doesn't it?
If you believe in the maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', which I would think many Labour supporters do, then you would surely be happy to pay a little more tax.

Yes that may apply to many *Labour supporters* (although for how many of these does it extend all the way to the desk in the privacy of the polling booth?). But you can't win an election with just Labour supporters. You *need* floating voters. Blair understood this, most of the Corbyn camp either don't understand or don't care.

 

[507021]

You don't vote for the PM, you vote for an MP, which is why we didn't get an election when Blair or Cameron stood down. If Labour won and Corbyn had to stand down on health grounds the day after the election, would you want another general election?

Yes, I know that. I was saying that it was the appeal of Nick Clegg (at the time) which would have led to me voting for the Liberal Democrats in my area, had I been old enough to do so. I don't like Tim Farron one jot, but had Nick Clegg been the leader now, I might have been tempted to vote for them again.

Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats came second in my constituency in 2010, and in 2015 they came last.

 

[Y961 XBU]

This may be why Sturgeon doesn't appear too happy about this election. The SNP have virtually nothing to gain, lots to lose, and the impact of her recent rhetoric on independence is as yet unknown and untested.

The situation in Scotland is now rather depressing. If you're left-wing and pro-independence then SNP is probably the natural vote. However if you're left-wing and anti-independence then who do you vote for? *If* the latter group find themselves tied down to voting Conservative, however reluctantly, the SNP could find their vote share start declining. Whether it's enough to lose seats is another matter, but Sturgeon doesn't want to be on any kind of declining path, as it weakens the case for independence, which is what she lives and breathes for, at any cost.

I think some people might vote against the SNP due to the independence thing and others will vote for Labour in a tatical sense as a way to try and give Labour more seats for the ones they lose

 

[Morgsie]

Theresa May talks about a Coalition of Chaos which is repeating what her predecessor back in 2015 and she was Home Secretary in a Coalition Government back in 2010-2015

 

[Bevan Price]

So bearing in mind that one of the pledges is to re nationalise the railways, what would that actual mean for a train driver in terms of both salary increase and tax paid for the next 5 years ?

No change. It won't happen even if Corbyn ever becomes PM, because he will be unable to afford to do it. The only thing that might happen will take place very slowly - franchises will be allowed to expire, and a "New BR" will take over their operations.

Eventually, after all franchises have expired, national pay scales will be introduced (with supplementary pay in areas with super-expensive housing such as London.) - BUT before "completion" could occur, the tories would be back in power and terminate deprivatisation.

 

[gareth950]

Another change that will be going under the radar at this election is the Conservatives gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries. This election is taking place under the current boundaries of 650 MPs, but if the Cons get a majority any future elections will take place under the new boundaries of 600 MPs, which are being drawn up largely in the Conservatives favour.

My current constituency for example already meets the proposed 70,000 population target per consituency, but is proposed to be abolished and merged with other constituencies anyway, which will benefit the Conservatives in my region.

 

[Bald Rick]

Another change that will be going under the radar at this election is the Conservatives gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries. This election is taking place under the current boundaries of 650 MPs, but if the Cons get a majority any future elections will take place under the new boundaries of 600 MPs, which are being drawn up largely in the Conservatives favour.

My current constituency for example already meets the proposed 70,000 population target per consituency, but is proposed to be abolished and merged with other constituencies anyway, which will benefit the Conservatives in my region.

That's a bold assertion. The boundary commission is required to be independent, and conducts its business transparently. The conclusions it draws are independent of government. It is then up to Government to implement them. Of course if the Government of the day doesn't like them then it won't progress, although that would be difficult in the face of overwhelming evidence and public opinion.

 

[Jordeh]

Another change that will be going under the radar at this election is the Conservatives gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries. This election is taking place under the current boundaries of 650 MPs, but if the Cons get a majority any future elections will take place under the new boundaries of 600 MPs, which are being drawn up largely in the Conservatives favour.

My current constituency for example already meets the proposed 70,000 population target per consituency, but is proposed to be abolished and merged with other constituencies anyway, which will benefit the Conservatives in my region.

I don't think it's fair to call it gerrymandering. The Conservatives aren't the ones redrawing the boundaries for starters, it's independently done.

The reality is, the UK population has significantly changed and the constituency boundaries need updating every so often to reflect this. The largest constituency at the moment is the Isle of Wight which has an electorate of 108,804 whereas the smallest Na h-Eileanan an Iar in Scotland has an electorate of just 21,769, that isn't fair at all.

 

[gareth950]

I don't think it's fair to call it gerrymandering. The Conservatives aren't the ones redrawing the boundaries for starters, it's independently done.

The reality is, the UK population has significantly changed and the constituency boundaries need updating every so often to reflect this. The largest constituency at the moment is the Isle of Wight which has an electorate of 108,804 whereas the smallest Na h-Eileanan an Iar in Scotland has an electorate of just 21,769, that isn't fair at all.

FPTP isn't fair full stop. It's not fair that the 2015 general election was won by the Tories getting just 37% of the vote but being able to form a majority government. But FPTP isn't being reformed is it? Because it suits the Tories not to reform it.
It did suit them to launch the boundary commission report to reduce the number of MPs by 50 though under the guise of 'reducing the cost of Politics', whilst it's not the Commons that desperately needs downsizing, it's the Lords with its almost 900 members.

Shaving a few hundred members off the Lords would 'reduce the cost of Politics' dramatically.

 

[Jordeh]

Shaving a few hundred members off the Lords would 'reduce the cost of Politics' dramatically.

No it wouldn't, it would save virtually nothing in the scheme of things. Most of them do not regularly turn up anyway and therefore cannot claim their allowance.

I do agree with reducing the size of the Lords though.

 

[najaB]

Shaving a few hundred members off the Lords would 'reduce the cost of Politics' dramatically.

Most of the Lords aren't paid anything more than travel costs and attendance allowance as compared to £74K plus expenses per MP.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

FPTP isn't fair full stop. It's not fair that the 2015 general election was won by the Tories getting just 37% of the vote but being able to form a majority government. But FPTP isn't being reformed is it? Because it suits the Tories not to reform it.

I don't recall Labour reforming it much either during their periods in power.

It will probably never get reformed - it would require a victorious party to change something that won them the election and agree that it is flawed, thus casting aspersions upon their own victory.

Anyway at the 2015 election, in a pure PR system we would probably have ended up with a Tory/UKIP coalition, with the end result being identical to what we actually got!

 

[Senex]

Well, it depends on your principles, doesn't it?
If you believe in the maxim 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', which I would think many Labour supporters do, then you would surely be happy to pay a little more tax.

How many of those Labour supporters are the ones who think they are going to be in the "to each" portion rather than the "from each" portion?

 

[EM2]

Your logic doesn't stand up. It's perfectly possible to support the policies that a leader is espousing while strongly preferring that the party had a different leader (for reasons, for example of ability to get the message out, concern at leadership style etc.)

But how can a candidate campaign for election based on these policies, if they don't believe in the person that will have to implement them?
If Labour were to win the Election by candidates successfully convincing the electorate that these are good policies for the country, they will then have Jeremy Corbyn in Number 10.

 

[EM2]

How many of those Labour supporters are the ones who think they are going to be in the "to each" portion rather than the "from each" portion?

Not the ones earning 70k+, I'd have thought.

 

[backontrack]

Same with some people in the south-west who used to say they voted Lib Dem because orange is a happy colour matching the sunny image of the area.

Do you have any idea how tactical voting works?

 

[edwin_m]

This has been discussed up thread. In short most opinion was that SNP will lose a few, maybe as many as a dozen, but still be by far the largest party in Scotland. My punt is that the Tories get more votes than Labour north of the border.

In a lot of ways the Tories and the SNP need each other.

Their disgust at being run by a party that has little support in Scotland makes Scots more likely to vote for SNP and independence, and I consider the unexpected Tory victory in 2015 was largely due to their playing on the possibility that the SNP would work with Labour to give England a government they hadn't voted for. This is despite the Tories having done all they can to undermine attempts to reform the voting system that would reduce the likelihood of such anomalies. And that unlikely Tory victory has ultimately given the SNP the opportunity of a lifetime to attain their ultimate goal.

 

[PR1Berske]

Another change that will be going under the radar at this election is the Conservatives gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries. This election is taking place under the current boundaries of 650 MPs, but if the Cons get a majority any future elections will take place under the new boundaries of 600 MPs, which are being drawn up largely in the Conservatives favour.

My current constituency for example already meets the proposed 70,000 population target per consituency, but is proposed to be abolished and merged with other constituencies anyway, which will benefit the Conservatives in my region.

Gerrymandering is a very specific act. No "gerrymander" would have a fully accessible website : https://www.bce2018.org.uk/