UK General Election 2017 Thread

[Hammersmith harrier]

First topic message reminder :

CONTINUE

[Scottrf]

Where was the bribe?

Tuition fees I presume, although I don't think that's a central point for many.

Labour getting the vote in Canterbury would suggest otherwise.

Done polling have you? I know loads of people that voted Labour that haven't previously, none of which are still to go to University.

[dyrewolfe]

Not relevant now but it wasn't fully costed - they just said it was.

And May wasn't strong or stable, she just said she was.

Its like the referendum all over again!

[Crimey]

Where was the bribe?

Tuition fees I presume, although I don't think that's a central point for many.

I agree. I don't think tuition fees was a huge voting factor more that Corbyn promoted more positive politics and I think a lot of people bought into the idea of a fairer society. Whether Corbyn could deliver those promises is a different question but I think deconstructing it as a simple bribe for votes is the only reason for his popularity is a little bit stupid. 

It's actually one of the things I disagree with in the manifesto, don't think it's necessary for social mobility to have free higher education and may actually cause more problems in the job market because of the number of over-qualified workers. 

However I don't think tuition fees in their current guise work. Debt is a scary proposition for many, particularly those who don't have parents to back them up in the future and it doesn't exactly encourage people to go and study less vocational causes. Which are important, despite what people tend to think. I'd rather see a Graduate Tax, which is then fair across the board as the rich can't get away with paying less by paying tuition fees outright at the beginning and you can scale it against earnings as well. It's less daunting than the idea of debt but it may also encourage people to go into non-graduate work where they can earn without paying more in tax.

[Crimey]

Theresa May and the Conservatives also learnt nothing from David Cameron calling the European Referendum. How in the space of a year, the same party can make the same error is incredible.

[Scottrf]

However I don't think tuition fees in their current guise work. Debt is a scary proposition for many, particularly those who don't have parents to back them up in the future and it doesn't exactly encourage people to go and study less vocational causes. Which are important, despite what people tend to think. I'd rather see a Graduate Tax, which is then fair across the board as the rich can't get away with paying less by paying tuition fees outright at the beginning and you can scale it against earnings as well. It's less daunting than the idea of debt but it may also encourage people to go into non-graduate work where they can earn without paying more in tax.

What you've just described is pretty much how student loans work.

[superflyweight]

Free tuition hasn't had the desired results in Scotland. Proportionally fewer kids from poorer backgrounds going to University than in England. College places and courses (which may actually give some poorer kids the qualifications to make it to University) are being cut in order to fund free tuition for people who can afford tuition fees or who will one day be able to pay them back. Schools are horribly underfunded and there's a teaching shortage due to lack of investment!

Its a policy which on the face of it seems to be socialist but which in fact is not redistributive and which is ultimately a nice little bonus for the middle classes.

[Crimey]

However I don't think tuition fees in their current guise work. Debt is a scary proposition for many, particularly those who don't have parents to back them up in the future and it doesn't exactly encourage people to go and study less vocational causes. Which are important, despite what people tend to think. I'd rather see a Graduate Tax, which is then fair across the board as the rich can't get away with paying less by paying tuition fees outright at the beginning and you can scale it against earnings as well. It's less daunting than the idea of debt but it may also encourage people to go into non-graduate work where they can earn without paying more in tax.

What you've just described is pretty much how student loans work.

I am fully aware of that. However, having been a student when the tuition fees were first raised to £9,000 I feel like I understand where a lot of the problems with tuition fees come from and I think a lot of the problems arise from the language used. 

People are scared of the debt, not paying for their education. Structuring it as a loan you take out, which then continues to gain interest is a scary thought. It also benefits the rich because their parents can pay off their tuition fees before they start studying, mean they pay less and don't have to deal with the stress of the idea of debt. 

Having a 'Graduate Tax' is different in terms of the language used and it doesn't unfairly benefit those from priveleged backgrounds as they have to pay it the same as everybody else, instead of getting away with paying it all off for less in the beginning. A little bit like how the rich can buy everything outright, whereas the poor are left to pay for things on credit which ends up more expensive. It's not a tectonic shift, it's a small change to make paying for university (which I think people should) more fair and more palatable.

[Crimey]

Nice Thick of It Quote with one minor change

[Scottrf]

If we can put people off going into higher education and towards actually making something it might be good though.

[jbeadlesbigrighthand]

Free tuition fees Dolph, was never going to happen but got people voting.

How come when a party has a policy that benefits someone else it's always a 'bribe'?

[Hammersmith harrier]

Free tuition fees Dolph, was never going to happen but got people voting.

How come when a party has a policy that benefits someone else it's always a 'bribe'?

It's not going to nor was it ever going to benefit anyone.

[temporary21]

Except you know... students. The doctors and nurses and higher ups of the future

[Samo]

Free tuition fees Dolph, was never going to happen but got people voting.

How come when a party has a policy that benefits someone else it's always a 'bribe'?

It's not going to nor was it ever going to benefit anyone.

Who was the dementia tax going to benefit? Or the corporation tax cuts?

[Scottrf]

Or the corporation tax cuts?

Her husband of course. Who would put up with politicians salaries if you can't set yourself up for the future?

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Believe me, tuition fees doesn't get a vote. Most students are well aware that they'll never pay much of it back.

The vote from the youth was based on general left-wing tendencies, and also the feeling that the older generations made decisions they did not like with Brexit. Rightly or wrongly, it will have been a fightback from feeling taken advantage of

[Hammersmith harrier]

Free tuition fees Dolph, was never going to happen but got people voting.

How come when a party has a policy that benefits someone else it's always a 'bribe'?

It's not going to nor was it ever going to benefit anyone.

Who was the dementia tax going to benefit?  Or the corporation tax cuts?

You've unsurprisingly missed the point.

[GSC]

Mixture of things I imagine. First has to be acknowledged is that Corbyn will always appear more genuine than a career politician than May. Appeals to some, others see a general lack of competency.

Young people also generally have less to lose than older voters. One thing taking a chance on a bold manifesto when you haven't really started on a career and have little in the way of assets or dependencies. Quite another when you have a mortgage/rent to pay, kids to provide for etc. The Tories compared to Corbyn will always be the "sensible" option for better or worse.

Third was May was just diabolical. Can't make the campaign all about you then wall yourself off from everyone.

This should go down as an election either side could have won without that much difficulty. The Tories had a 20 point lead. Conversely they ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory and left the door wide open. Both sides blew it and the big loser is Britain. This majority wont last and we'll spend the first half of Brexit negotiations deciding who's actually doing them.

[Hero]

One of the big deciding factors for me was the level of cuts at schools in the next term, East Cheshire was going to get absolutely battered, the school my two lads are heading to was getting over £350k slashed off its annual budget and would have resulted in 12 teachers losing their jobs.
How can a government be so short sighted to cripple future generations?

[dyrewolfe]

what links does the DUP have with terrorism or violence? Does anyone know?

They were formed by alot of members of the Ulster Resistance which were a large paramilitary group during the troubles.

That sounds quite worrying. It is a bit ironic then that Conervatives were saying Corbyn supports terrorism when May has just invited a terrorist group to form a government with her.

What views do the DUP have? I know they are pro-brexit but what are their views on education and the nhs and austerity etc. Does anyone know.

Meh, the whole "terrorists" angle is old hat now.

Ever since Blair (via Mo Mowlam and US Senator George Mitchell) negotiated the Good Friday Agreement, which also involved the UDP and Sinn Fein.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/good_friday_agreement

Former Irish paramilitaries have been central to Irish politics for nearly 2 decades now (the most famous / notorious being Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness).

Trying to label them terrorists for political gain now is pretty laughable IMHO.

It's relevant though when the Conservatives spent so much time saying it about Corbyn.

Not relevant...just wrong. I thought that was bad, negative tactics from the Tories.

Considering everything that went on, I'm amazed they still managed to poll more votes and win more seats than anyone else.

[dyrewolfe]

Mixture of things I imagine. First has to be acknowledged is that Corbyn will always appear more genuine than a career politician than May. Appeals to some, others see a general lack of competency.

Young people also generally have less to lose than older voters. One thing taking a chance on a bold manifesto when you haven't really started on a career and have little in the way of assets or dependencies. Quite another when you have a mortgage/rent to pay, kids to provide for etc. The Tories compared to Corbyn will always be the "sensible" option for better or worse.

Third was May was just diabolical. Can't make the campaign all about you then wall yourself off from everyone.

This should go down as an election either side could have won without that much difficulty. The Tories had a 20 point lead. Conversely they ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory and left the door wide open. Both sides blew it and the big loser is Britain. This majority wont last and we'll spend the first half of Brexit negotiations deciding who's actually doing them.

Not a bad summary.

Currently getting mixed messages from the continent. Some German fellow is saying "the clock is ticking" while Michel Barnier is hinting Brexit could be delayed until we have an actual strong, stable government.

[navyblueshorts]

So why not Boris then?

Because he's a turncoat in it for himself and a bumbling idiot?

[temporary21]

Well that. But he is a Tory ...

[Pr4wn]

I think that what makes Corbyn's achievement more remarkable is the barrage of abuse that he's suffered from the right-wing press and from within his own party. The Mail and Sun have practically branded him an enemy of the state and have said that he's complicit in terrorism (which is ridiculous) and some within the PLP have tried to oust him numerous times.

Through all of that, he stood tall, didn't compromise on his principles of pragmatism, pacifism and socialism. He did things his way and now he's looking like the professional when compared to May who looks weak and without credibility now.

[Scottrf]

Lord Buckethead is another of the big winners from last night. 130% up on his previous number of votes.

[Hammersmith harrier]

Through all of that, he stood tall, didn't compromise on his principles of pragmatism, pacifism and socialism. He did things his way and now he's looking like the professional when compared to May who looks weak and without credibility now.

You'd almost think that Labour got more votes and seats not the other way round, if May is weak and without credibility it doesn't say much for the person who lost to her.

[GSC]

Might be something in this setting the bar astonishingly low malarkey

[Ent]

Mixture of things I imagine. First has to be acknowledged is that Corbyn will always appear more genuine than a career politician than May. Appeals to some, others see a general lack of competency.

Young people also generally have less to lose than older voters. One thing taking a chance on a bold manifesto when you haven't really started on a career and have little in the way of assets or dependencies. Quite another when you have a mortgage/rent to pay, kids to provide for etc. The Tories compared to Corbyn will always be the "sensible" option for better or worse.

Third was May was just diabolical. Can't make the campaign all about you then wall yourself off from everyone.

This should go down as an election either side could have won without that much difficulty. The Tories had a 20 point lead. Conversely they ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory and left the door wide open. Both sides blew it and the big loser is Britain. This majority wont last and we'll spend the first half of Brexit negotiations deciding who's actually doing them.

Also Labour had a higher proportion of the UKIP vote than thought, also can't ignore the greens not standing in many areas to allow Labour or the Lib dems a free run at seats - their vote was down by 2% which is nothing to sniff at.

[GSC]

Heard Hillary spent too long in long shot states looking for a knockout she left the key votes neglected. Wonder if Theresa made a similar mistake.

Big swings up north for the Tories but in massive Labour majorities.

[Ent]

However I don't think tuition fees in their current guise work. Debt is a scary proposition for many, particularly those who don't have parents to back them up in the future and it doesn't exactly encourage people to go and study less vocational causes. Which are important, despite what people tend to think. I'd rather see a Graduate Tax, which is then fair across the board as the rich can't get away with paying less by paying tuition fees outright at the beginning and you can scale it against earnings as well. It's less daunting than the idea of debt but it may also encourage people to go into non-graduate work where they can earn without paying more in tax.

What you've just described is pretty much how student loans work.

I am fully aware of that. However, having been a student when the tuition fees were first raised to £9,000 I feel like I understand where a lot of the problems with tuition fees come from and I think a lot of the problems arise from the language used. 

People are scared of the debt, not paying for their education. Structuring it as a loan you take out, which then continues to gain interest is a scary thought. It also benefits the rich because their parents can pay off their tuition fees before they start studying, mean they pay less and don't have to deal with the stress of the idea of debt. 

Having a 'Graduate Tax' is different in terms of the language used and it doesn't unfairly benefit those from priveleged backgrounds as they have to pay it the same as everybody else, instead of getting away with paying it all off for less in the beginning. A little bit like how the rich can buy everything outright, whereas the poor are left to pay for things on credit which ends up more expensive. It's not a tectonic shift, it's a small change to make paying for university (which I think people should) more fair and more palatable.

A graduate tax would be terrible, you'd pay it for life and end up paying more overall - more people would end up paying it compared to the current set up. It's a tax on aspiration.

The problem for students and access to university isn't the student fees, it is the other debt incurred - the maintenance loans and private loans people take out to live. A return of maintenance grants would be better.

[Ent]

Heard Hillary spent too long in long shot states looking for a knockout she left the key votes neglected. Wonder if Theresa made a similar mistake.

Big swings up north for the Tories but in massive Labour majorities.

Questions over the data she and her advisors were using, they weren't up there for a laugh they expected to win some of those seats and push others very close.

[Samo]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote, Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that. The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

[GSC]

Heard Hillary spent too long in long shot states looking for a knockout she left the key votes neglected. Wonder if Theresa made a similar mistake.

Big swings up north for the Tories but in massive Labour majorities.

Questions over the data she and her advisors were using, they weren't up there for a laugh they expected to win some of those seats and push others very close.

Suspect 2 things occurred.

Greater number of younger voters than predicted.

Manifesto turned away older voters, Tories most reliable voting group.

Reality is she had 20 point lead to wipe him off the map. Labour MPs actively airbrushing from their local campaigns. That lead was always going to narrow but JC had a great campaign and the Tories had a terrible one.

[GSC]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

[Hammersmith harrier]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

I'm happy with the current system for that reason, my MP represents the area I live in not a proportion of the country.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

MMP works in Germany & NZ. While you sometimes wind up with some "interesting" minor parties in coalition the major 2 tend to be quite centrist - in NZ National (Tories) have at times governed with (or had confidence/supply support from) NZ First (UKIP equivalent anti-immigration populist party), ACT (business-friendly low-tax party), United Future (single-MP centrist/Christian party) & the Maori Party (kind of SNP-equivalent) while Labour has governed with the Alliance (a combination of hard-left & green groups), the Progressives (basically if Momentum had their own party), NZ First, United Future & the Greens. And generally the minor party gets it's own 1- or 2- "pet" policies implemented while going along with the rest of the major party's stuff.

The less said about the daft system that got put up in the LibDems referendum the better mind

And at least with PR a vote for a different party in a "safe" constituency isn't necessarily wasted.

[dyrewolfe]

I think that what makes Corbyn's achievement more remarkable is the barrage of abuse that he's suffered from the right-wing press and from within his own party. The Mail and Sun have practically branded him an enemy of the state and have said that he's complicit in terrorism (which is ridiculous) and some within the PLP have tried to oust him numerous times.

Through all of that, he stood tall, didn't compromise on his principles of pragmatism, pacifism and socialism. He did things his way and now he's looking like the professional when compared to May who looks weak and without credibility now.

Still not as popular though, when all is said and done.

[dyrewolfe]

Heard Hillary spent too long in long shot states looking for a knockout she left the key votes neglected. Wonder if Theresa made a similar mistake.

Big swings up north for the Tories but in massive Labour majorities.

Thats what they were saying on the Beeb. She visited 2 or 3 Welsh constituencies (sometimes more than once) but failed to get any seats.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

That's what I like about MMP in NZ. You still have electorates (OK, we dropped from 100 electorates to ~60-odd when we switched over from FTP) with the other ~60 seats being assigned to parties to reflect proportionality. It does mean you cast 2 votes - 1 for your electorate MP, and one for your preferred party which adds a little complexity to voter education. That said, it lets me vote against my electorate MP* every election even though I vote for his party more often than not


*I've had dealings with the man a couple of times and he's a complete and utter bell end

[dyrewolfe]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

Same here.

I also like that it requires a pretty seismic shift to get a different party into government. With PR its possible there would be far less stability and much more frequent changing of governments.

[Ent]

Probably need to reduce the number of seats available to Scotland and NI, possibly Wales.

PR good in theory but difficult in practice.

[navyblueshorts]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

Umm, yes. Needed to go for decades but having got in to Government using it, none of the parties will trash it. Pathetic, but there we are.

[navyblueshorts]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

Same here.

I also like that it requires a pretty seismic shift to get a different party into government. With PR its possible there would be far less stability and much more frequent changing of governments.

What? Than what we've had over the last couple of years and are going to have over the next one???? Not sure there's been many claims that the WWII coalition 'didn't get anything done' has there?

PR etc gets the same press all the time. It's bunkum. U.K. is probably too dumb to work out how it functions. It's not like we'd be the first to try it, so I'm sure many of these 'concerns' have been thought through before...

[Hammersmith harrier]

PR would be a nightmare in this country and I only think it works properly in a two party system.

[dyrewolfe]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

Same here.

I also like that it requires a pretty seismic shift to get a different party into government. With PR its possible there would be far less stability and much more frequent changing of governments.

What? Than what we've had over the last couple of years and are going to have over the next one???? Not sure there's been many claims that the WWII coalition 'didn't get anything done' has there?

PR etc gets the same press all the time. It's bunkum. U.K. is probably too dumb to work out how it functions. It's not like we'd be the first to try it, so I'm sure many of these 'concerns' have been thought through before...

I like how you're very carefully choosing your example there Prawn.

How about the 3 consecutive terms won by Thatcher and Blair, followed by their successors Major and Brown?

Attlee got a couple of terms after WWII.

Conservatives had 3 successive terms under Churchill, Eden and Macmillan.

Harold Wilson had 4 terms in office, only interrupted by Ted Heath.


If you make it easier to change governments, then it follows governments will change more frequently, or at least the likelihood of this happening is increased.

[Pr4wn]

I think that what makes Corbyn's achievement more remarkable is the barrage of abuse that he's suffered from the right-wing press and from within his own party. The Mail and Sun have practically branded him an enemy of the state and have said that he's complicit in terrorism (which is ridiculous) and some within the PLP have tried to oust him numerous times.

Through all of that, he stood tall, didn't compromise on his principles of pragmatism, pacifism and socialism. He did things his way and now he's looking like the professional when compared to May who looks weak and without credibility now.

Still not as popular though, when all is said and done.

There was an increased turnout and he had the biggest share of the vote for Labour since 2001. Quite the accomplishment considering he was 20 points down at the start of the campaign. Those complaining that he didn't win outright are over-simplifying.

[dyrewolfe]

I think that what makes Corbyn's achievement more remarkable is the barrage of abuse that he's suffered from the right-wing press and from within his own party. The Mail and Sun have practically branded him an enemy of the state and have said that he's complicit in terrorism (which is ridiculous) and some within the PLP have tried to oust him numerous times.

Through all of that, he stood tall, didn't compromise on his principles of pragmatism, pacifism and socialism. He did things his way and now he's looking like the professional when compared to May who looks weak and without credibility now.

Still not as popular though, when all is said and done.

There was an increased turnout and he had the biggest share of the vote for Labour since 2001. Quite the accomplishment considering he was 20 points down at the start of the campaign. Those complaining that he didn't win outright are over-simplifying.

I fully agree. I think Corbyn and Labour did incredibly well, considering their starting position, as well as the various gaffes and bad press.

It was the Tories' election to lose...and they pretty much did. Ran an awful, one-dimensional campaign and resorted to mud-slinging at Corbyn (can't believe they haven't learned their lesson there).

Theresa May's one and only saving grace is that they still managed to be the largest party and came within a few seats of securing an overall majority. Which I think is almost as amazing as what Corbyn and Labour pulled off, all things considered.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

PR would be a nightmare in this country and I only think it works properly in a two party system.

Works fine in NZ with a multi-party system. And Germany.


Though the tendency of the UK media to have chickens at the mere prospect of a coalition is something that'd need to be worked through.

[Pete C (Kiwireddevil)]

The conservatives only got 2% more of the vote,   Can we all agree the FPTP system needs to go?  

SNP get 35 seats with 900k votes while the Lib Dems get 12 seats with more than double that.  The Greens get 500k votes for 1 seat while the Tories and Labour are averaging about 50k each a seat.

I still like you elect a MP that supposedly represents your area on a national stage. Not sure how that fits into PR

Same here.

I also like that it requires a pretty seismic shift to get a different party into government. With PR its possible there would be far less stability and much more frequent changing of governments.

What? Than what we've had over the last couple of years and are going to have over the next one???? Not sure there's been many claims that the WWII coalition 'didn't get anything done' has there?

PR etc gets the same press all the time. It's bunkum. U.K. is probably too dumb to work out how it functions. It's not like we'd be the first to try it, so I'm sure many of these 'concerns' have been thought through before...

I like how you're very carefully choosing your example there Prawn.

How about the 3 consecutive terms won by Thatcher and Blair, followed by their successors Major and Brown?

Attlee got a couple of terms after WWII.

Conservatives had 3 successive terms under Churchill, Eden and Macmillan.

Harold Wilson had 4 terms in office, only interrupted by Ted Heath.


If you make it easier to change governments, then it follows governments will change more frequently, or at least the likelihood of this happening is increased.

Since switch over NZ has had 3 3-term Governments - in fact the Labour govt in the 00s lasted the longest of any Labour administration going back to the 1930s when the party was founded

[ShahenshahG]

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a830369/jeremy-corbyn-accidentally-high-fives-emily-thornberry-boob/?utm_content=buffer60271&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=maintwitterpost

[Pr4wn]

Also, hilarious that the Tories repeatedly used the term "coalition of chaos" to describe Labour. Now they're in bed with a load of right-wing religious fundamentalists.

[Sponsored content]