snap general election?

bendertherobot

So, given no actual DUP deal just yet, and last night's mistake in saying that there was, what exactly did she say to the Queen on Friday?

bendertherobot

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/what- ... -1.3083586

This is fun.

bendertherobot

https://twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status ... 0809350144

bendertherobot

So, that reshuffle. Seems like it was all Liz Truss's fault.

mamba80

bendertherobot wrote:

So, that reshuffle. Seems like it was all Liz Truss's fault.

Enemy of the People

Frank the tank

Snap general election, while not winning it went very well for labour and democracy in general.

For the first time in a generation there has been a genuine choice to be made and I think this also inspired the young vote.

bompington

Frank the tank wrote:

Snap general election, while not winning it went very well for labour and democracy in general.

For the first time in a generation there has been a genuine choice to be made and I think this also inspired the young vote.

Amidst all the petty tribalism - and despite my considered opinion that Corbyn is actually a dangerous and hateful man who would be an unmitigated disaster as PM - I have to say that I agree with you there.

rolf_f

Frank the tank wrote:

Snap general election, while not winning it went very well for labour and democracy in general.

For the first time in a generation there has been a genuine choice to be made and I think this also inspired the young vote.

Really? A turd is a turd and two turds are just two turds. I want neither on my feet. Maybe the 'inspiration of the young' was simply down to Corbyn concentrating on Uni towns rather than chasing after the obvious marginal. And the realisation of the young that they stuffed up big time last year and that voting against May was the only way to try to mitigate the mess.

And I think it went rather badly for Labour and it's only down to the woefully low expectations that people regard the outcome as a success for Labour. The Tories will be happy with that definition of Labour success.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Snap general election, while not winning it went very well for labour and democracy in general.

For the first time in a generation there has been a genuine choice to be made and I think this also inspired the young vote.

Amidst all the petty tribalism - and despite my considered opinion that Corbyn is actually a dangerous and hateful man who would be an unmitigated disaster as PM - I have to say that I agree with you there.

I think Trump & Brexit did more to get young people engaged than Corbyn did, but whatevs.

rjsterry

David Davis: talk of replacing TM is a "complete waste of people's time" and "unbelievably self-indulgent". So much irony it's starting to rust.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

David Davis: talk of replacing TM is a "complete waste of people's time" and "unbelievably self-indulgent". So much irony it's starting to rust.

he is starting to resemble a confused elderly relative

briantrumpet

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

David Davis: talk of replacing TM is a "complete waste of people's time" and "unbelievably self-indulgent". So much irony it's starting to rust.

he is starting to resemble a confused elderly relative

He'll be bringing up Hillary's emails next as a reason they lost their majority.

bompington

This in Spiked voices a lot of the unease I feel about the whole thing

rick_chasey

Like I said, Trump & Brexit I think were bigger motivators to get the youth engaged in politics than Corbyn.

Corbyn was just the recipient of that, because he took the time to listen to young people and take their concerns seriously.

Honestly, the Tory party couldn't have cut a more elderly figure if they tried - dementia tax balls up aside.

I can't think of a high profile tory policy aimed at young people.

Not one.

kingstongraham

bompington wrote:

This in Spiked voices a lot of the unease I feel about the whole thing

It's fair. It's coming from both sides. The Daily Mail is so easy to kick against. If that's one side, it's easy to decide that the alternative is righteous. Even when it isn't.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

Like I said, Trump & Brexit I think were bigger motivators to get the youth engaged in politics than Corbyn.

Corbyn was just the recipient of that, because he took the time to listen to young people and take their concerns seriously.

Honestly, the Tory party couldn't have cut a more elderly figure if they tried - dementia tax balls up aside.

I can't think of a high profile tory policy aimed at young people.

Not one.

Free breakfasts.

rick_chasey

And as for the culture of victimhood - if, as I saw as my entire time as an under 30yr old - that the youth are regularly disparaged as lazy, entitled, obsessed with parites (whilst BBC4 dedicates wall-to-wall nostalgia TV for the kind of parties the babyboomers attended in their youth) then perhaps it’s not surprising the youth are acting like victims.

My entire teens and 20s, the pervading attitude was the young don’t know sh!t and they are a waste of a generation. You see the same now in the criticism of the youth voting for Corbyn. As if it's somehow frivolous.

No wonder they turned out of politics.

Not wanting to leave university with half a mortgage’s worth of debt should be a legitimate political position to take, even if you disagree with it. It’s about as selfish as the pensioners who punish politicians for not retaining pensions.

You see it on the forums here too.

FocusZing

That's what success and winning looks like.

coopster_the_1st

Basically Labour did as well as they did because they offered students £50k and the low paid a gross £4500 pay rise.

They didn't win with these promises but they have seen their route to power. Next time they will promise even bigger giveaways and who will they put the burden on to pay for it?




Never has the following story been so accurate

Common Sense wrote:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,“but he got £10!”

“Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That's true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

rick_chasey

Point proven.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

And as for the culture of victimhood - if, as I saw as my entire time as an under 30yr old - that the youth are regularly disparaged as lazy, entitled, obsessed with parites (whilst BBC4 dedicates wall-to-wall nostalgia TV for the kind of parties the babyboomers attended in their youth) then perhaps it’s not surprising the youth are acting like victims.

My entire teens and 20s, the pervading attitude was the young don’t know sh!t and they are a waste of a generation. You see the same now in the criticism of the youth voting for Corbyn. As if it's somehow frivolous.

No wonder they turned out of politics.

Not wanting to leave university with half a mortgage’s worth of debt should be a legitimate political position to take, even if you disagree with it. It’s about as selfish as the pensioners who punish politicians for not retaining pensions.

You see it on the forums here too.

There was a generation of kids who were more likely to vote in Big Brother than an election. I imagine partly because it came in an era of continued growth and two very centrist parties. These kids had not really experienced any great political change.

Therefore it became easier to buy the votes of the older generation who would always vote, because they had lived through periods of great political uncertainty. Along came the pensions triple lock in part financed by the introduction of tuition fees etc. (although this is a later example)

Then came political uncertainty, and the the kids woke up, realised that they could vote and effect change. They had a choice and two parties with radically different views. Although interestingly, Labour supported both the triple lock and an end of tuition fees.

I don't really see victims or sloths.

rick_chasey

I don't disagree - hence my view that Brexit & Trump were the big politicisers.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't disagree - hence my view that Brexit & Trump were the big politicisers.

I credit Trump with very little. Brexit, Corbyn, house prices and a Tory party that's become even more the party of the rich (think £1m of inheritance funded by disability cuts*).

*A point made by IDS.

TheBigBean

Incidentally, the DUP's manifesto is silent on how wealthy you need to be to live with your foreign spouse, so I'm unable to judge them on this metric. Labour scored highly.

surrey_commuter

FocusZing wrote:

That's what success and winning looks like.

2nd left - is that Gove and is he praying or asleep?

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Point proven.

Your point is wrong though. The Canterbury constiuency result proves that.

The generation you reference try to paint themselves as the victims when it's really about them no longer getting their own way all the time.

slowbike

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Basically Labour did as well as they did because they offered students £50k and the low paid a gross £4500 pay rise.

They didn't win with these promises but they have seen their route to power. Next time they will promise even bigger giveaways and who will they put the burden on to pay for it?

It's not always about money

It's about ideals and those elected to be in power actually listening to the people they're representing.

We had a referendum on whether to leave the EU or not - it was a close run call - of those that voted - 52% said leave, 48% said stay - 28% of the population didn't vote - more than enough to sway it both ways.
IMHO, the result should've been to stay as although there were more votes for leave, it wasn't a significant majority - just 3% of the poplutaion cast a vote that changes it all.

Tories went off on one and called for "Hard Brexit" - hang on - nearly 50% of those that voted didn't want to leave - suddenly we're after a complete break from the EU? But the general public didn't get to say on that ...

If spitting image were to be running now, then TM's catchline would be "I'm very clear" - yes - she's so clear she's transparent.

Then the PM calls a general election, seems to pin all her hopes on a "Vote for me, only I can deliver hard brexit" plan that spectacularly backfires because we don't vote for a PM - we vote for a representative - and quite honestly, the Tory party don't seem to be listening to what the country is saying - the country is divided on leaving the EU - I dare say that if the referedum were to be run again then the result would go the other way...
How do we make the government listen? Give them the old "kick in the balls" - which is exactly what this government have received - now they're scabbling around in pain wondering just what they've been doing for the last 12 months.

At least with JC and Labour party now you know what you would be voting for - someone with balls of steel who sticks by his principles - yet listens to his party - not just those who shout the loudest. I don't agree with a lot of JCs plans - but he's appears to be a man that deserves to be heard - no matter what clothes he's wearing.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Point proven.

Your point is wrong though. The Canterbury constiuency result proves that.

The generation you reference try to paint themselves as the victims when it's really about them no longer getting their own way all the time.

If ever there is a generation that has had it their own way, it is the baby boomers (and the one after). The problem is that they have convinced themselves and the rest of us that their situation should be the new normal. And that the unaffordable promises that they have made to themselves have to be paid by the following generations.

The current generation of young people have a lot more to complain about than I ever did.

veronese68

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The generation you reference try to paint themselves as the victims when it's really about them no longer getting their own way all the time.

That's not the way the ones I know see it. They think things, environmentally and politically, are being royally screwed up by the older generations and they are going to have to deal with what, if anything, is left at the end of it all.

dinyull

Slowbike wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Basically Labour did as well as they did because they offered students £50k and the low paid a gross £4500 pay rise.

They didn't win with these promises but they have seen their route to power. Next time they will promise even bigger giveaways and who will they put the burden on to pay for it?

It's not always about money

It's about ideals and those elected to be in power actually listening to the people they're representing.

We had a referendum on whether to leave the EU or not - it was a close run call - of those that voted - 52% said leave, 48% said stay - 28% of the population didn't vote - more than enough to sway it both ways.
IMHO, the result should've been to stay as although there were more votes for leave, it wasn't a significant majority - just 3% of the poplutaion cast a vote that changes it all.

Tories went off on one and called for "Hard Brexit" - hang on - nearly 50% of those that voted didn't want to leave - suddenly we're after a complete break from the EU? But the general public didn't get to say on that ...

If spitting image were to be running now, then TM's catchline would be "I'm very clear" - yes - she's so clear she's transparent.

Then the PM calls a general election, seems to pin all her hopes on a "Vote for me, only I can deliver hard brexit" plan that spectacularly backfires because we don't vote for a PM - we vote for a representative - and quite honestly, the Tory party don't seem to be listening to what the country is saying - the country is divided on leaving the EU - I dare say that if the referedum were to be run again then the result would go the other way...
How do we make the government listen? Give them the old "kick in the balls" - which is exactly what this government have received - now they're scabbling around in pain wondering just what they've been doing for the last 12 months.

At least with JC and Labour party now you know what you would be voting for - someone with balls of steel who sticks by his principles - yet listens to his party - not just those who shout the loudest. I don't agree with a lot of JCs plans - but he's appears to be a man that deserves to be heard - no matter what clothes he's wearing.

Good post.

It always seemed a bit of a risk to me, going after hard brexit when it was such a close result. And if anything, I'd say there are a lot more people who voted brexit that have since changed their minds than the vice versa.