Join the Labour Party and save your country!

tangled_metal

Does anyone know when the last government was voted in with more than 50% of the vote? Well I looked back to 1945 and still haven't found one. Not Blair's majority of seats at +60%, not Thatcher's government, not a single government for 70+ years.

So anyone who bangs on about a majority government getting in with less than half the votes is just sour grapes. Some of the government's with the highest mandates never got over 49%. It's our system and the one all parties work to in a general election.

BTW if May gets in with 48 or 49% of the vote she'll be with good company. Not since Macmillan in '59, Eden, Churchill and Atlee. If she pulls that off she's in a strong position I reckon. Care to estimate how many MPs she'll have behind her?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

So what do you actually think of it as a policy? From here it is starting to look a little like Ed Milliband in drag (apologies for that mental image).

Is it all for show?

Sounds like a pitch to Labour voters.

Not sure how much will come through but the workers on boards idea is populist crap as I've always said. Although the alternatives from Labour of turning us into a Labour French wannabe are hardly appealing.

As a "Labour voter" you don't sound very impressed . Next thing you know she'll be chiselling pledges into a big stone slab...

More seriously it'll be intriguing to see how far she's willing to push the populist stuff at the risk of damaging the Party of Business image.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

The party of business have figured out that business has nobody else to vote for so has dropped them like a lead balloon.

I'm not sure that the fringe protest parties such as Labour, Lib Dems and SNP are particularly business friendly are they

Time to join the winning team?

Errr - that is my point. She has no need to chase their vote.

surrey_commuter

Tangled Metal wrote:

Does anyone know when the last government was voted in with more than 50% of the vote? Well I looked back to 1945 and still haven't found one. Not Blair's majority of seats at +60%, not Thatcher's government, not a single government for 70+ years.

So anyone who bangs on about a majority government getting in with less than half the votes is just sour grapes. Some of the government's with the highest mandates never got over 49%. It's our system and the one all parties work to in a general election.

BTW if May gets in with 48 or 49% of the vote she'll be with good company. Not since Macmillan in '59, Eden, Churchill and Atlee. If she pulls that off she's in a strong position I reckon. Care to estimate how many MPs she'll have behind her?

As you suggest % of votes really does not matter.

There does seem to be a lack of predictions on size of majority.

Not being tribalistic I find myself rooting for a Tory majority of 80-100 seats. Enough to sideline the loons but not so massive that she does not care.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

So what do you actually think of it as a policy? From here it is starting to look a little like Ed Milliband in drag (apologies for that mental image).

Is it all for show?

Sounds like a pitch to Labour voters.

Not sure how much will come through but the workers on boards idea is populist crap as I've always said. Although the alternatives from Labour of turning us into a Labour French wannabe are hardly appealing.

As a "Labour voter" you don't sound very impressed . Next thing you know she'll be chiselling pledges into a big stone slab...

More seriously it'll be intriguing to see how far she's willing to push the populist stuff at the risk of damaging the Party of Business image.

It is strange how she is chasing every vote rather than stating her policies and getting a strong mandate. It could give us an inkling into how she thinks. Personally I think she is canny as fvck. Give the Countryside Alliance a vote on fox hunting so that when the fvcks the farmers they will not unite against her.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Be ironic to claim an overwhelming mandate with 48%.

Its all we need. Same rules apply to all parties.

How much of a mandate does your party have currently?

Only said it would be ironic. You can't ignore the 52%!

I don't have a party.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status ... 0704870400

On a related note.

tangled_metal

Ukip voters returning to their real party of choice to leave them with their loonies and bigots perhaps?

More interesting is the progressive alliance movement springing up between the Labour, green and LibDem parties. Whilst not officially sanctioned at the top I reckon, it's still happened in a few seats.

So ukip voters returning to Tories is being considered a kind of pact. However the real pact is in those seats where one party candidate has not been put on the ballot paper to prevent the diluting of anti-Tory vote. Way to go guys, take away the people's choice to vote for the party they want to. Is it anti-democracy?

I once considered voting tactically. IIRC it would have been a vote to LibDems to stop Labour, well try. I decided it was wrong. I shouldn't worry about other's vote but vote with my conscience or political belief. It's your voice and IMHO taking away your voice for cynical gain?!!!

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Lib Dems innit.

Can you send a bit of whatever you've been smoking please Rick

What's your take on TM's workers' rights strategy, Stevo? It's... not a conventional Tory approach. I would imagine with this and previous threats to restrict businesses' ability to hire who they want, some traditional Conservative backers must be wondering what's going on. Or will it be hastily watered down or dropped altogether like some other recent ideas?

Well it's clearly hitting our support because we're down to a paltry 48% support, from 49% last week

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

So what do you actually think of it as a policy? From here it is starting to look a little like Ed Milliband in drag (apologies for that mental image).

Is it all for show?

Sounds like a pitch to Labour voters.

Not sure how much will come through but the workers on boards idea is populist crap as I've always said. Although the alternatives from Labour of turning us into a Labour French wannabe are hardly appealing.

As a "Labour voter" you don't sound very impressed . Next thing you know she'll be chiselling pledges into a big stone slab...

More seriously it'll be intriguing to see how far she's willing to push the populist stuff at the risk of damaging the Party of Business image.

It is strange how she is chasing every vote rather than stating her policies and getting a strong mandate. It could give us an inkling into how she thinks. Personally I think she is canny as fvck. Give the Countryside Alliance a vote on fox hunting so that when the fvcks the farmers they will not unite against her.

Does the CA still exist in a meaningful way? Just checked, and yes it does but appears to have jettisoned any pretence at being anything other than a pro-hunting pressure group. Are their votes really worth the effort? The CA's claim that the entire rural economy was dependent on hunting was always nonsense.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/864366140704870400

On a related note.

Clegg is a bit like Blair. He thinks he is very popular, but largely only manages to damage his party.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is strange how she is chasing every vote rather than stating her policies and getting a strong mandate. It could give us an inkling into how she thinks. Personally I think she is canny as fvck. Give the Countryside Alliance a vote on fox hunting so that when the fvcks the farmers they will not unite against her.

I think she might look back in 5 years at a lost opportunity. She's going to win, why not articulate what she actually wants to do? Unless that really is just to win.

FocusZing

Not really, if you can win without listing a load of policies which then have to be u-turned on due to unforeseen circumstance, why do that? Keep it simple and just let the voters know you are presentable, right for the job and will fight for the country.

Hell, as we know the job is more about reacting to the unknown rather than some headline grabbing policy (holidays) which is a stupid idea anyway. Another, promising a pay rises to NHS employees. Great idea in a utopia. In reality then the fire, police, teachers... every other public servant wants one too and what happens if we go into recession, still committed! The rest of the country see pay packets fall.

bendertherobot

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

bendertherobot

And worth noting that, whisper this, nationalisation cuts across the devolved administrations.....

kingstongraham

FocusZing wrote:

Not really, if you can win without listing a load of policies which then have to be u-turned on due to unforeseen circumstance, why do that? Keep it simple and just let the voters know you are presentable, right for the job and will fight for the country.

Hell, as we know the job is more about reacting to the unknown rather than some headline grabbing policy (holidays) which is a stupid idea anyway. Another, promising a pay rises to NHS employees. Great idea in a utopia. In reality then the fire, police, teachers... every other public servant wants one too and what happens if we go into recession, still committed! The rest of the country see pay packets fall.

Because at the moment, voters are having to put their own ideas on the blank canvas that she is laying out. That's no way to get people to trust you over the long term.

There isn't even a direction of travel being pushed, a Conservative underpinning based on planning for the future, personal responsibility, rewarding hard work, helping those who help themselves. Just strong and stable leadership in the national interest, the best deal for Britain, and an energy price cap.

Labour has managed to make being "presentable" enough.

bendertherobot

It's interesting that the party who called the surprise election can't release a manifesto before the others who had no idea this was coming.

It's almost as if someone decided it one Sunday evening after a few drinks......

tangled_metal

Why rush it out? Do you actually read the main party's manifestos anyway?

FocusZing

Hill walking in Snowdonia apparently.

The three peaks recommended.

bendertherobot

Tangled Metal wrote:

Why rush it out? Do you actually read the main party's manifestos anyway?

Well, being a bit old fashioned, taking a month after the announcement with only 3 weeks left feels a bit slow.

And, well, yes.

FocusZing

Tangled Metal wrote:

Why rush it out? Do you actually read the main party's manifestos anyway?

Yes. I doubt the majority do, they are too busy sorting out their own houses policies.

With new Labour it was a real sense of positive change to a parties direction. If was enough to know it was more business and economy driven.


That's enough of the politics for now, I had visions of Ben Elton.

shortfall

Having just watched John McDonald's car crash interview and seen what's in Michael Foot's manifesto (sorry Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto) I think the Tories could promise to eat children and still win by a landslide.

tangled_metal

If you believe some they do, in that rich kid's club they were all in. The last shower and boris that is. Eat children that is.

rjsterry

bendertherobot wrote:

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

Go on...

bendertherobot

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

Go on...

At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.

If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'

Stevo_666

bendertherobot wrote:

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.

tangled_metal

Didn't transfer of water already happen not too many years ago between two water companies? IIRC they used a combination of large bore water mains and local waterways to get Welsh water to the Midlands. It's a vague memory so some details might be wrong but it happens even now in the privatised water industry.

rjsterry

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

Go on...

At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.

If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'

My understanding is that the logistics of transferring significant volumes of water are such that it's only ever a last ditch solution. It's a problem in the SE due to the high population +lower rainfall, so no real reason to spread the cost of works to SE infrastructure over the whole country.

bendertherobot

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

Go on...

At the moment, if there's a drought, there's no mechanism outside a bulk water supply to supply the SE with water from the wetter areas.

If the entire thing is nationalised, even if into 9 regions, then there's the potential for that water to be transferred for 'free.'

My understanding is that the logistics of transferring significant volumes of water are such that it's only ever a last ditch solution. It's a problem in the SE due to the high population +lower rainfall, so no real reason to spread the cost of works to SE infrastructure over the whole country.

That's infrastructure. My point is about legal mechanism. Water is 'owned' by the privatised company. Outside the bulk water supply agreement there's nothing that can be done for TW to source its water from, say, Wales. If the companies are all joined up then water is a national not regional resource.

bendertherobot

Stevo 666 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Water company nationalisation is an interesting one. The people of the SE would be well advised to have a look at that carefully......

How much do they think it will cost to buy back the water companies? On top of the other nationalisations already promised.

The profit making water companies? A lot.

tangled_metal

Buy back by compulsory purchase through the issuing of government bonds? That's what I read on BBC as one option.