snap general election?

Pross

Coopster the 1st wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

At least we only have 8 weeks of this one... :?

The remoaning snowflakes must be twisted in knots at the moment

If the EU referendum was based on constiuencies it would have been 400+ to leave.

I don't see why. They know who to vote for (unless any sitting Labour/Conservative MPs say they will vote the way they said was best for the country before the referendum). And maybe they might actually vote this time.

I'm sure it's a coincidence that the vote is on the day before the last day of university.

Surely that date will benefit the Lib Dems as the students will not be voting for labour (tuitions fees is still Lib Dems fault)

I doubt that even comes into the consideration of (the majority of) current students. That decision was made when they were in their early teens and to them tuition fees are just a fact of life just like students in the 90s soon forgot that their predecessors received grants to go to Uni. The current crop of students voted overwhelmingly to remain (or were too young to be given a vote) and the Lib Dems are the only party they'll see who are openly opposing Brexit. The election date won't be an accident.

kingstongraham

Greens will be opposing Brexit as well. They have a chance in a couple of seats, I think?

veronese68

Coopster the 1st wrote:

tuitions fees is still Lib Dems fault

The Conservatives had quite a lot to do with that. The anger was aimed at the Lib Dem's because they failed to stop it. It's the Conservative party that have since increased them further and have increased the interest charged on student loans. As Pross said, staying in the EU is far more important to most students and universities.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Pross wrote:

Takes away Sturgeon's (and anyone else's) key argument that she's not mandated to do the job. With the opposition in such a pitiful state she'd have been stupid not to do this and I'm surprised no-one seemed to be expecting it. The only way she can lose if if she actually loses her seat. If she wins the election she can push through what she wants and no-one can say she lacks the authority, if she loses someone else inherits the mess.

The only reason for not thinking she was going to do it was her repeated insistence that she wasn't going to do it.

and if it was so obvious why not go on same day as local council elections, May 4th, which begs the question of what changed in the last 4 weeks?

Jez mon

bendertherobot wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Maidenhead is an interesting seat. 45% leave.

No chance. In 2015 it had the fourth biggest majority in the whole UK

I merely said interesting. She won't lose it. But it could be interesting watching some hustings.

Back in 2001 the Lib Dems did fairly well there

I think we'll see a large gain for the Tory party across the board, and a bounce back for the Lib Dems.

The labour party will struggle on, possibly the loss will end Corbyn's reign as leader, but realistically the damage has been done.

Perhaps the Lib Dems will get enough seats for them to play the role of unofficial opposition.

It would be interesting if we got into a scenario where a coalition is required, I can't see how one could possibly ever be formed by the current parties, so presumably we would just get another election off the bat?

surrey_commuter

RichN95 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Given that Labour have forgotten what oppositions are supposed to do, their losing lots of seats won't make much difference to the Tories' ability to push stuff through.

It will make a difference to what they push through though. May's primary opposition comes from within her own party. I think that she has realised that any vaguely workable Brexit is undeliverable while the number of intransigent super-hard Brexiteers in her party outnumber her majority.

agreed - this is her chance to sideline the Redwood's of this world

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Smart move by May given that Labour is now in complete turmoil.

Mamba- if you're reading this I hope you haven't forgotten about our little bet. I'll be heading down the cash point and get the 50 quid out now

Gald your back and on form, hope all is going as well as it can be, all considered.

but you were against a GE when i suggested it back last year after she became PM... but tories and changing their position seems to be the norm lol!

yep our bet was for the 2020 GE (and JC still lab leader) but of course i m happy to move this to 2017... proceeds to our fav charities i believe, so good call, get down to the cash point!!!

bendertherobot

Jez mon wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Maidenhead is an interesting seat. 45% leave.

No chance. In 2015 it had the fourth biggest majority in the whole UK

I merely said interesting. She won't lose it. But it could be interesting watching some hustings.

Back in 2001 the Lib Dems did fairly well there

I think we'll see a large gain for the Tory party across the board, and a bounce back for the Lib Dems.

The labour party will struggle on, possibly the loss will end Corbyn's reign as leader, but realistically the damage has been done.

Perhaps the Lib Dems will get enough seats for them to play the role of unofficial opposition.

It would be interesting if we got into a scenario where a coalition is required, I can't see how one could possibly ever be formed by the current parties, so presumably we would just get another election off the bat?

Another election? You can't keep asking a question till you get the right answer!

mrfpb

Veronese68 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

tuitions fees is still Lib Dems fault

The Conservatives had quite a lot to do with that. The anger was aimed at the Lib Dem's because they failed to stop it. It's the Conservative party that have since increased them further and have increased the interest charged on student loans. As Pross said, staying in the EU is far more important to most students and universities.

But the students need to actually go out and vote. Turnout for u25's was poor at the referendum - and that was the biggest national turnout for a vote for quite some time.

Looking at 2015 results:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

There was a loss of 15% vote share for LibDems (the only losers) and gain of 9% for UKIP (biggest gainers). The Tory vote hardly shifted, they benefitted from the votes shifting around them.

I can only surmise that LibDems stayed home, and UKIP motivated non-voters to go out for the first time. The idea tha people switched LibDem to UKIP is just too strange.

So if the LibDem voters have forgiven the party, they stand to gain more seats, especially if they alos sell themselves as the Remainers party. UKIP can gain if people are still not content with the Brexit process. How quick can Farage book his ticket home?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Given that Labour have forgotten what oppositions are supposed to do, their losing lots of seats won't make much difference to the Tories' ability to push stuff through.

It will make a difference to what they push through though. May's primary opposition comes from within her own party. I think that she has realised that any vaguely workable Brexit is undeliverable while the number of intransigent super-hard Brexiteers in her party outnumber her majority.

agreed - this is her chance to sideline the Redwood's of this world

Indeed. An increased Tory majority, which seems likely, but far from certain these days, could allow TM to sideline the Eurosceptics, so might actually work to the benefit of Remain voters.

On the UKIP front, I noticed Carswell's tweet. Essentially, thanks for your help but we've no further need of you. As flip flopping is quite the thing design nos jours, Arron Banks has decided that he might have some time for UKIP after all.

veronese68

mrfpb wrote:

There was a loss of 15% vote share for LibDems (the only losers) and gain of 9% for UKIP (biggest gainers). The Tory vote hardly shifted, they benefitted from the votes shifting around them.

I can only surmise that LibDems stayed home, and UKIP motivated non-voters to go out for the first time. The idea tha people switched LibDem to UKIP is just too strange.

So if the LibDem voters have forgiven the party, they stand to gain more seats, especially if they alos sell themselves as the Remainers party. UKIP can gain if people are still not content with the Brexit process. How quick can Farage book his ticket home?

That all makes sense. Nige is probably already on a plane and working out how to get the leadership back again.

surrey_commuter

will be interesting to see if they end the coalition led ring fencing and have a proper Tory manifesto... so no more triple lock, 0.7% in development aid, health and education.

surrey_commuter

Veronese68 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

There was a loss of 15% vote share for LibDems (the only losers) and gain of 9% for UKIP (biggest gainers). The Tory vote hardly shifted, they benefitted from the votes shifting around them.

I can only surmise that LibDems stayed home, and UKIP motivated non-voters to go out for the first time. The idea tha people switched LibDem to UKIP is just too strange.

So if the LibDem voters have forgiven the party, they stand to gain more seats, especially if they alos sell themselves as the Remainers party. UKIP can gain if people are still not content with the Brexit process. How quick can Farage book his ticket home?

That all makes sense. Nige is probably already on a plane and working out how to get the leadership back again.

I still think May is a smart cookie. She wants to sideline the nutters and go for a softer Brexit. There is no way that even the King of the Twats can move the tide in 6 weeks and make UKIP a serious threat. If I was cynical I would think that TM had waited until A50 was triggered as most of the Brexiteers have been told "job done" so removing UKIP from the equation.

mrfpb

Bad news for LibDems and UKIP (if almost instant polls can be believed)

bendertherobot

I wonder what the UKIP manifesto will be?

joenobody

Surrey Commuter wrote:

agreed - this is her chance to sideline the Redwood's of this world

He's my MP, and I'm hoping this is a chance for him to lose his seat. Unfortunately Wokingham has been a Tory safe seat for as long as I can remember. However, there is growing local resentment of the Tory council, with the LDs gaining favour. We were also a remain constituency, so I have a faint hope local voters will actually make a conscious choice for who they give their vote to, instead of voting blue because that's what they've always done...

In fact, I'd probably be pretty pleased with a Conservative landslide nationally if Redwood loses, even though I'd really like to see a strong showing from the LDs.

burnthesheep

Do you guys and gals over there have the same issue as us here in the US that a bunch of sheep and farm animals in rural areas get a disproportionate representation versus the number of people in other districts?

In other words, how often does the number of representatives for a party majority outweigh the actual number of people in the majority vs the minority?

rick_chasey

I'm glad everyone's so positive about the lib Dems.


As much as I am more lib dem than any of you lot, I would say that Faron is a liability, not an asset to proceedings. Lib Dems could do with a bigger core of more sensible people rather than the usual hard line nutters that are always in the door first and last out for any political party.

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

dinyull

burnthesheep wrote:

Do you guys and gals over there have the same issue as us here in the US that a bunch of sheep and farm animals in rural areas get a disproportionate representation versus the number of people in other districts?

In other words, how often does the number of representatives for a party majority outweigh the actual number of people in the majority vs the minority?

Considering we're a population of over 60 million on an island similar in land mass to Florida........

RichN95.

burnthesheep wrote:

Do you guys and gals over there have the same issue as us here in the US that a bunch of sheep and farm animals in rural areas get a disproportionate representation versus the number of people in other districts?

In other words, how often does the number of representatives for a party majority outweigh the actual number of people in the majority vs the minority?

If it was just Conservative v Labour then it would be reasonably representative of the popular vote (there's some bias towards the Conservatives). However, when it comes to the second rank parties it's much more flawed. So Lib Dems and UKIP don't get the number of MPs that their popular vote deserves, while the SNP, due to their regional focus, get far more.

surrey_commuter

burnthesheep wrote:

Do you guys and gals over there have the same issue as us here in the US that a bunch of sheep and farm animals in rural areas get a disproportionate representation versus the number of people in other districts?

In other words, how often does the number of representatives for a party majority outweigh the actual number of people in the majority vs the minority?

our farked up system does not even begin to match your description

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

the limits of your stupidity are an unknown unknown

I have given up the herculean task of educating you and will let somebody else explain why that thought (joke?) does not work.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

the limits of your stupidity are an unknown unknown

I have given up the herculean task of educating you and will let somebody else explain why that thought (joke?) does not work.

SC, given the odds on the Tories winning will be very very short it would have to be a huge bet to get a decent payback, so I suppose you have a point as to why it doesn't work. Ironically the Lib Dems don't have that sort of money...

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

the limits of your stupidity are an unknown unknown

I have given up the herculean task of educating you and will let somebody else explain why that thought (joke?) does not work.

SC, given the odds on the Tories winning will be very very short it would have to be a huge bet to get a decent payback, so I suppose you have a point as to why it doesn't work. Ironically the Lib Dems don't have that sort of money...

OK - maybe it is me but I do not see how betting on the outcome of the election helps with your pre-election expenses.

Anyway will be interesting to see more detailed seat by seat analysis rather than blanket opinion polls. Could Labour go under 200? if not then a thumpin Tory majority will depend upon Lib Dems. To sideline the nutters we probably need a 50 seat majority so will be touch and go.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

the limits of your stupidity are an unknown unknown

I have given up the herculean task of educating you and will let somebody else explain why that thought (joke?) does not work.

Aw petal, you'll be one snowflake that I will enjoy watching melt on June 9th :P

I don't care one jot that the Lib Undemocrats are lacking funds for this election in the same way I don't care about UKIP.

Those rich enough to make a difference can now put their money where their mouth is or are we seeing what people really think about where staying in the EU ranks with the elite.

Or is their lack of funding showing which party they know they will be better off under? :P

Lookyhere

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

the limits of your stupidity are an unknown unknown

I have given up the herculean task of educating you and will let somebody else explain why that thought (joke?) does not work.

SC, given the odds on the Tories winning will be very very short it would have to be a huge bet to get a decent payback, so I suppose you have a point as to why it doesn't work. Ironically the Lib Dems don't have that sort of money...

OK - maybe it is me but I do not see how betting on the outcome of the election helps with your pre-election expenses.

Anyway will be interesting to see more detailed seat by seat analysis rather than blanket opinion polls. Could Labour go under 200? if not then a thumpin Tory majority will depend upon Lib Dems. To sideline the nutters we probably need a 50 seat majority so will be touch and go.

Surely though May has proven herself to be equal to any on the right of the party.
i do not see her as some sort of moderate at all, what crumbs has she thrown to the 48% or the moderates within the conservative party?

Of course, May being May she will bow to whatever way the wind blows so perhaps you ll be proven correct.

kingstongraham

Survival of the richest. Makes you proud.

Have you considered that this is an opportunity for may to jettison the batshit brexit wing of her party and have policies more in keeping with what she thought before last June?

Here's hoping. All I can do is vote for my MP in Richmond park. A general sense of Tories winning might even mean she keeps her seat, depending on who they put up against her.

Lookyhere

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They had a big cull to curb expenses after the big defeat and have a small budget.

If you're serious about them, a donation to them would go a long way to help.

Maybe they can increase their budget by going down to Ladbrokes and putting a bet on the Tories winning the election?

the limits of your stupidity are an unknown unknown

I have given up the herculean task of educating you and will let somebody else explain why that thought (joke?) does not work.

Aw petal, you'll be one snowflake that I will enjoy watching melt on June 9th :P

I don't care one jot that the Lib Undemocrats are lacking funds for this election in the same way I don't care about UKIP.

Those rich enough to make a difference can now put their money where their mouth is or are we seeing what people really think about where staying in the EU ranks with the elite.

Or is their lack of funding showing which party they know they will be better off under? :P

Face facts Coop, he is right, you need to know your limits, proven by the fact you haven't realised SC will be very happy come the 9th june.

Lookyhere

KingstonGraham wrote:

Survival of the richest. Makes you proud.

Have you considered that this is an opportunity for may to jettison the batshit brexit wing of her party and have policies more in keeping with what she thought before last June?

Here's hoping. All I can do is vote for my MP in Richmond park. A general sense of Tories winning might even mean she keeps her seat, depending on who they put up against her.

We dont really know what she really thought pre june 2016, she said little and what she did say was probably on the lines of hedging her bets, as the opinion polls were a remain win.

I judge her on her actions and on her various speeches, to me she is as right wing as any within her party.

though of course i really hope you are right!!!