Oh snap! UK Prime Minister Theresa May calls June election Prime Minister Theresa May has called a snap general election to be held on 8 June. The 11am statement – delivered 15 minutes earlier than political journalists had been led to believe – confirmed that an election would be held in seven weeks. In a veiled reference to last June's referendum vote to leave the European Union, …
This post has been deleted by its author
You actually think Labour could get it's **** together by 2020? You're far more optimistic than I am, I think she'd win then, the difference is that after being smashed in 2017, labour are almost certain to ditch Corbyn who'll likely end up spawning a new party thanks to "momentum" numpties.
Tories want a mandate and they'll get it.
It's about the brexit mandate.
48/52 although a win for Brexit is a narrow win.
Getting a (eg) 60/40 split of the MPs in the Tory favour in Parliament can be called by May a "clear mandate" etc and she can ride over last years vote and claim that we're all for it. Rather than the actualite which would be more like a lot of voters were put off by Corbyn with the effect of diluting opposition to Tory voters.
Getting a (eg) 60/40 split of the MPs in the Tory favour in Parliament can be called by May a "clear mandate"
And (if a lot more moderates get elected) it'll mean that she can ignore the right-wing nutters without fear of losing a majority.
Which will mean (hopefully) that a more reasoned Brexit will happened without the "Europe is the spawn of eeevvviiillll" loons being able to throw thier minimal weight around).
Well, one can dream[1] anyway.
[1] Actual dream is that the Tories will lose their majority completely and the balance of power will be with saner heads..
@ CrazyOldCatMan
"Which will mean (hopefully) that a more reasoned Brexit will happened without the "EU is the spawn of eeevvviiillll" loons being able to throw thier minimal weight around)."
Fixed it for you. The EU is in Europe but Europe is not the EU. It is a very important distinction as the EU torched Greece, caused war in Ukraine and is the political establishment which has caused the extremist parties to gain traction throughout European countries within the EU.
But will May get the two-thirds majority in parliament that is needed to pull off this move?
Corbyn has already said Labour will vote for an election. I think that gives May the 2/3rds majority she needs. Of course, whether all Labour MPs will vote that way is another question entirely.
If Corbyn wasn't such a fucking tool, he'd do what the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is supposed to do and oppose the government. Let May get her parliamentary majority only with the support of the SNP or try and ride out the inevitable backbench rebellions. Fixed term parliaments are only supposed to be undone by votes of no confidence in the government, not to allow the PM to call snap elections when it suits them.
"Fixed term parliaments are only supposed to be undone by votes of no confidence in the government, not to allow the PM to call snap elections when it suits them."
Or a vote of no confidence. Or repealing the Act. Or a new law (Statutory Instrument, anyone?) to amend it and effectively neuter it.
Also worth bearing in mind the Tories created the Act too, but now find it inconvenient.
Or a vote of no confidence. Or repealing the Act. Or a new law (Statutory Instrument, anyone?) to amend it and effectively neuter it.
Also worth bearing in mind the Tories created the Act too, but now find it inconvenient.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was a condition demanded by the Liberal Democrats in forming the coalition government with the Tories in 2010. Their concern was that as soon as the polls shifted a little in the Tories' favour, the Prime Minister would call a snap election to jettison their unwelcome bedfellows. Before the Act was passed, the Prime Minister alone had the authority to ask the Queen to dissolve the Government and thus trigger a general election, so the Lib Dems would not have been able to stop it.
"If Corbyn wasn't such a fucking tool"
This is a man who stood at the last election on a pro-EU manifesto, whose constituents backed Remain by more than 50%, and yet at the first opportunity used his party whip to tell his MPs they should ignore the wishes of their own constituents and toe his line ... "tool" is but one way of putting it ....
"Makes one think of turkeys voting for Christmas."
Now that the reality of how much brexit will fuck things over in favour of the tories is starting to dawn on people, a campaign based on "Fuck brexit and fuck the tories" might have traction.
If GenX and Millennials were to get out and vote, it would scare the bejesus out of the establishment and this time around they're starting to get pissed off enough to actually get politically engaged.
But will May get the two-thirds majority in parliament that is needed to pull off this move?
Corbyn has already said Labour will vote for the motion.
But that just raises the question of how many Labour MPs give a shit what Corbyn thinks any more and will vote according to whether they think they can hold onto their seat or not (although going against the Party at this point could cost them their PPC nomination anyway).
You actually think Labour could get it's **** together by 2020?
It is not so much a matter of getting their shit together, it is a matter of people starting to hate Tory's guts to "Poll Tax Level" of hate once more. Elections can be won on the positive and on the negative. She foresees a high likelihood that she will lose that election on the negative, otherwise she would not need to call a snap one.
Tories may get a mandate, but it will do nothing to unite the country - Scotland will go more nationalist and liberal. Cities which voted remain will all swing back to Liberal and countryside will swing even further back to Leave - all courtesy of "first past the pole".
"[...] countryside will swing even further back to Leave [...]"
Not necessarily. It has slowly dawned on some of those areas that hard BREXIT potentially means reduced subsidies and no seasonal labour for crop picking. An unfettered DEFRA is likely to be even less efficient at distributing any replacement subsidies.
Which will be further complicated by the apparent enthusiasm for the Tory party to support the inclusion of farming and food production in any trade negotiations with the US leading to drops in animal welfare (not that much go the farming lobby - the big boys) could give a shit, and competition from very much cheaper (subsidised as well) meat and veg.
I don't see this ending well for the gaming Brexit lobbyists.
Want a crop of seasable hands to pick the crops?
Perhaps some of the soon to be redundant Labor MP's will apply?
Will Jeremy be one of them? Oh the irony if he was. By supporting the vote for the election, he could be signing his own P.45.
And pigs might fly...
"[...] how have you come to the conclusion that there won't be any seasonable labour available for crop picking?"
The BBC "Farming Today programme at 06:45 has often considered the impact. Two factors have been suggested.
One is that EU labour will not have free movement access.
The other is that the drop in the value of Sterling has made the already low rates of pay less attractive to the usual foreign workers.
The need for foreign workers is because people in England generally won't do that type of work. The tourist catering/hotel industry is also fearing the same problems.
Tory minister Priti Patel campaigned for "Leave" on the stated intention of replacing EU immigrant workers with freer access for those from the Indian subcontinent. India/Philippines are also wanting freer access to the UK labour market as a part of any future trade deal. That is unlikely to be fruit/vegetable pickers though.
"It is not so much a matter of getting their shit together, it is a matter of people starting to hate Tory's guts to "Poll Tax Level" of hate once more. "
Exactly, I have just been reading up on the elections of the 1920s and 1930s where sudden swings were common. Personally I tend to agree with the people who think that Labour are now in the position of the Liberals post-WW1, i.e. permanent decline. Basically English politics consists of the Conservatives being the party of power, but moving their goalposts to suit the conditions, while other parties rise and fall. But the Conservatives are vulnerable to protest parties at times - as they were in 1997 when the economy was actually improving but they were wiped out.
"But the Conservatives are vulnerable to protest parties at times"
_ALL_ parties are vulnerable to swing and non-voters.
The mistake they make is to only court the swing voters (marginal seats) and treat non-voters as "If you don't vote, you don't exist" - all parties get lists of _who_ voted even if they don't know what they voted for and it's been made abundantly clear to me that regular voters get more door knockers. Most parties don't even bother trying to campaign to people who haven't voted.
A solid campaign based on getting those who haven't voted out to the polling booths would be a fundamental shock to the conservatives on all sides as they rely on electoral complacency.
Whilst this might sound like a pipe dream, it's exactly the tactic that Barack Obama used to mobilise the Democratic vote in the USA.
Funnily enough, the CPS is due to report about the last elections alleged fraud...about the start of June. So that's dead in the water now!
And don't those irritating student people (80% in favour of remain) have exams around the first week in June?
Maybe we'll get a government that'll tell the media billionairarses to GTF....
I can dream?
I'm hoping we can reduce the number of Tory MPs in Scotland by 1.
I'm hoping you can too. Wish I could help.
This opportunity reminds me of John Major's government, where after losing his last Welsh MPs he appointed John Redwood to be the Home Office minister for Wales. The best rationale anyone could come up with for this choice was that the Vulcan was the only Tory MP who could at least see Wales from his Herefordshire home.
"Who will be returned in [..] Scotland?"
This is irrelevant. The SNP has 56 of 59 Scottish seats already, but no power over an English (and Welsh) voted Tory majority at Westminster. We could vote for 59 fluorescent macaques and it would have no effect.
Nothing undemocratic about that in the purely technical sense. That's what you (or rather, we) get for remaining a part of a political union with a far larger partner whose political and cultural values have been diverging from ours for a long time.
Still, I'm glad we chose to say "No" to independence, because- as all the scaremongering unionists promised- our place within the EU is safe that way. Isn't it, Mr. Darling?
"The SNP has 56 of 59 Scottish seats already" - yes, despite getting only 50% of the Scottish vote, because they have the same swingy winner-take-all constituency system as England & Wales. And guess what's the one aspect of their constitution that the SNP doesn't propose to change?
Sidenote, there's a popular Scots myth that the country voted solidly against Brexit. If that were true, then Brexit wouldn't be happening. The fact is that 38% of Scots - and 40% of Londoners, and 44% of Northern Irish - voted Leave. Moral: opinion was, and is, divided everywhere. (Except Gibraltar.)
I for one welcome the election. Either the Tories will be returned with a thumping majority, in which case fine, they can get on with Brexit in their own way (and they'll be cripplingly unpopular by the time of the next election, because of all the promises they'll have to break, but that's their problem) - or the Lib Dems will stage a big comeback, in which case equally fine, maybe they can reverse the whole thing. Either way I see a net gain on the present position.
"Sidenote, there's a popular Scots myth that the country voted solidly against Brexit."
I'd say 62% Remain against 38% Leave (i.e. a 24% margin) is a pretty damn solid majority; far, *far* larger than the 51.9 vs. 48.1% (i.e. 3.8%) sliver that the pro-Leave camp won by UK-wide.
@AC
"I'd say 62% Remain against 38% Leave (i.e. a 24% margin) is a pretty damn solid majority"
Or as the remain voters put it- 38% is a significant number of people and should be listened to. We cant just listen to the 62% we should listen to the 38%. How can you trample the rights of the 38%? It was just advisory so we dont need to listen to the 62%. Our parliament is sovereign so we should accept the brexit. 62% gave the wrong answer and have no idea what they were voting for/are idiots/are uneducated/lack intelligence/shouldnt be listened to and we should ignore what they want for the good of the country.
Any leave voters want to pile on any insults they have received feel free. I am sure I have missed out loads.
"and UKIP are dead."
They are at about 15% in the polls. That's not far off Labour. Not to mention that they got over 4 million votes last general election - that's more than the SNP. I would expect that UKIP will push Labour into third place in many constituencies.
This post has been deleted by its author
"April, May: June."
Was the best summary I've seen.
The polls make this look like a sensible (if u-turney) move. But there's a lot that can happen in 7 weeks.
Tory MPs in remain areas are at high risk. In addition Tory MPs who scraped a win at the last election (South West in particular). Lib Dems could win 30-50 seats if they get their act together consistently (and that seems likely).
Tories are hoping for Labour to collapse, and whilst that looks likely, it's one thing polling a disillusioned lifetime-Labour voter outside of the election cycle, and what they do when pencil comes to paper at an election. Assuming that Labour actually work together now this has been dumped on them (instead of sniping at Corbyn until he is unseated), maybe they could limit damages. Never mind UKIP's zombie corpse taking critical votes from the Tories (and Labour in some areas).
So 50 SNP, 50 Lib Dem, 200 Labour, some others - enough to mean May could have a majority that isn't that dissimilar to now - i.e., all for nowt, and it would look pretty bad for her.
But she'll dodge the election fraud by-elections.
Those that dont like their lot in life may well vote for total chaos, as they did last time. While they are going to be the ones more affected by this, I kind of understand it. The lowest rank employee of the warehouse does not hate the Rich people playing golf and earning millions from traded companies while doing nothing: they hate their midlevel manager.
So I fully expect conservatives to increase their support, and Labour to continue going down.
Shame Bill Boaks is long dead, he might actually have stood a chance this time, on the grounds that he'd have the most sane and rational policies.
vote for destruction & loss of privacy, or vote for total chaos.
I do not see any order in the Brownian motion of Boris and Co and the rest of UK negotiation related staff. So frankly it is: vote for destruction & loss of privacy, and vote for total chaos. That is valid for both major parties.
I somewhat envy Scotland and Northern Ireland now - they at least have some resemblance of choice.
"Scotland [at least has] some resemblance of choice."
That choice being irrelevant here.
"[...] Northern Ireland now - they at least have some resemblance of choice."
As the two major parties in Northern Ireland can't currently agree on power sharing - then it is likely that their devolved powers will revert back to Westminster control. Whichever of those parties people vote for - the result is the same stalemate.
BREXIT will then further complicate the issue of the land border with the Republic of Ireland.
The UK is one of the richest countries in the world.
The UK continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.
It's health service has seen year-on-year cuts to it's services, resulting in catastrophic waiting times and delays in the winter we've just had.
There have been cuts and after cuts after cuts to disability benefits for those who can't physically work.
Councils are cutting social services as well as public amenities due to savage cuts set by the Government.
More than 5,000,000 children are in poverty.
I bolded the last one because it really is a WTF moment. We have all this money we can pump in to our "defence" forces to attack other countries. We have all this money that allows us to create sweetheart deals for individual councils while other councils suffer cuts. We have all this money to give MP's yet another rise in their take home pay.
But we can't give a child one free cooked meal at school a day. How's that for nearly 10 years of Conservative policies?
Actually no, sorry. I forgot it's all to tackle the deficit. The deficit that the nurses, the children who weren't even born at the time of the financial crisis, the disabled, Joe Soap who works 40 hours a week to make ends meet caused. They all caused it, so they should pay. Those bankers were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I'm glad that we bailed them out after their gambles didn't pay off.
I wish the tax payer would do the same for me when I put £1,000 on a 150/1 shot to win the Grand National, only to end up falling and getting shot.
'More than 5,000,000 children are in poverty.'
Really? At the last census there were 14.9 Million aged from 0-19, are you saying 1/3 of them are in poverty? Because I'd like a citation on that other than a random rant on the internet. Oh and a definition of poverty that isn't a meaningless percentage of the average wage.
I bolded the last one because it really is a WTF moment.
As in "WTF are you talking about"? Even CPAG, who have a vested interest in boosting the numbers, put it at 3.9m, and they define poverty as ".. lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, " which is what most authorities define as "relative poverty", rather than any absolute measure.
I do apologise. It was 4 million not 5 million.
I guess that's alright then?
Oh well, if you're citing the Graun, we have to believe you!
They're referring to relative poverty, that figure is stupid because:
If everybody's wages doubled overnight, that figure would increase (!)
If there's a recession and everybody gets poorer, that figure would decrease (!)
The only reason that figure exists is because it can be used until the end of time to garner support for a particular cause.
"Oh well, if you're citing the Graun, we have to believe you!"
Would you rather I quoted The Daily Fail?
Regardless. Poor is poor is poor. A country as rich as ours shouldn't have poor, or at least should have something in place to give those in that situation the best chance to get out of that situation.
Talk about figures, who qualifies and what doesn't. But answer me this: What is the big problem in giving a child a free school meal? Why is that such an issue when we can give an MP £80,000+ a year (plus expenses that we never see) to tell us - you, me, everybody - that things are getting tight and we can't spend that much on helping those in need?
Why is that a big deal? Why is it a problem?
"Would you rather I quoted The Daily Fail?"
You pretty much did, just its opposite.
"Regardless. Poor is poor is poor."
Not in this case. Absolutely and relatively are very different. You can be poor or not measured absolutely (and in that case we have effectively if not absolute 0) compared with relatively where we will always have poor.
"A country as rich as ours shouldn't have poor"
As pointed out by others the measurement ensures there will always be those classed as 'poor'. Just as 50% of schools will be below average no matter what we do.
"Just as 50% of schools will be below average no matter what we do".
I accept your sentiment, but the statement is incorrect. If I have 4 gifts priced at £1, £9, £9 and £9, 75% are below (cost more than) the average of £7, while 25% are (is) above. Conversely, if they are £1, £1, £1 and £9, 75% are above (cost less than) the average of £3, while only 25% below.
As always, it depends what you are measuring and how it is being reported. There will, however, always be at least one school below some specified average - unless all are equal.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Poor is poor is poor.
Nor really. There's poor as in "I can only afford a second-hand Fiesta when my neigbours have BMWs", and poor as in "my children are cold and starving". There's even Dickensian poor, where the workhouse was the only option. We can never realistically hope to remove everyone from the first category, working to fix the others is of course important.
A country as rich as ours shouldn't have poor
It will always have poor, simply because we can't all be equal.
or at least should have something in place to give those in that situation the best chance to get out of that situation.
No argument there, and a good education system is paramount. You can't always make people take advantage of it, though.
Poor is poor is poor.
So I grew up in a family that would have under that definition counted as poor I think, and there's a big difference between poor the definition and real poverty. Decent access to a pretty good local school, free education with an opportunity to go to uni and never hungry or with no electric etc.
Now at uni i have met people who had well off parents and yes they have a certain level of privilege, better schools, nicer holidays to foreign countries rather than say Canvey island, or maybe Cornwall but generally speaking on the starting out in life baseline we were reasonably on the level.
I have friends who are teachers in some schools in this country were the kids root through the bins for food and the parents have literally sold everything including the kitchen sink, shelves and oven. Those kids are so below the starting from out on in life baseline compared with us it's unreal. That's poverty,
Oh well, if you're citing the Graun, we have to believe you!
Sure, it is slanted. Graunidad is, you have to read them with a pinch of salt even if you are paying them some support money (like I do).
So it is probably not 4 million. It is likely to be less. However, even a million, even a fecking half a million are something that a G7 economy should be ashamed of. And it is definitely in the 500k+ range.
This post has been deleted by its author
>It's been blatantly obvious for a long time that "clearing the deficit"- regardless of whether that was a legitimate goal in itself- was being used as an excuse to push through ideologically-motivated Tory cuts, privatisations et al.
These policies haven't actually cleared any of the national debt and we still have a massive deficit. All they have done is make people hate the wrong targets (benefits seekers and immigrants) rather than the bankers and politicians that led us into this mess.
Clearing the deficit is possible....but not along with tax cuts.
Clearing the debt is also possible, but not while still paying state pension benefit, or while funding a "free at point of treatment" health service.
And in any case, the U.K. has been in debt for a few hundred years, many times by a few hundred percent of GDP. Yet now a debt of 80% (+-) of GDP is a catastrophe?
Clearing the debt/deficit is a useful goal to persuade idiots to have less, pay more and (for all I know) die earlier.
The real solution to getting children out of poverty is getting the parents out of poverty.
Anybody with a calculator can figure out that a single parent on the average wage, (or a couple earning a bit above the minimum wage) are going to struggle due to the property prices taking around half of their wages before getting onto council taxes, and things like food, light, heat, clothing etc. Heck, how many people are just priced out of having children altogether?
One of the reasons we have a recession is that people are spending most of their money on basic necessities and frankly have no disposable income to spend on luxury items. Easy solution? Build more houses.
Lots more houses. Dust off the plans for prefabs, suspend or amend planning rules that NIMBY's use to maintain their house prices at crisis levels for a couple of years, build on the green belt (yeah, more people in the UK means more houses. Deal with it) and let's aim for putting up around a quarter million a year. If it could be managed after WW2 with large parts of the population dead or maimed, with the industry bombed flat then we have no reasonable excuse for not managing it now when vastly less manpower is required since most of it can be automated via CNC machines etc.
Large numbers of houses built means that housing costs come down, which means more disposable income, which means more spending on things other than housing, which means more jobs in other sectors. It's good news for everybody except housing developers, or the rich with "buy to let" portfolios which would then devalue somewhat.
"It's good news for everybody except housing developers, or the rich with "buy to let" portfolios which would then devalue somewhat."
It would have to be social housing to be effective - like the postwar housing developments. Apart from some "flat in the sky" projects many of those developments were solid and neighbourly - even if on the edge of town.
A recent survey of new housing showed that a large amount was being bought by overseas investors - especially with the drop in value of Sterling. They weren't necessarily even renting it out - just a safe place to keep their money. Can't remember the source - but the calculations were that no matter how many new houses were built for sale - they wouldn't change the un-affordability for most people in this country.
If you haven't got a source, then it might as well just have been made up.
And by "no matter how many new houses are built" I think the issue is the discussed "ambitious" plans towards building an additional 20 thousand houses a year over existing construction of 180k P/A. That won't make a bit of difference when net imigration to the UK is 273k P/A, and that (obviously) excludes people born in the UK.
By any sane back of the envelope calculation we could fill several million additional houses right now.
Dusting off prefab plans and building 250k prefabs a year on top of existing construction would make a dent in the problem pretty much immediately.
Sorry to p&ss on your parade, but the economic crisis was the work of Bair and his sidekick Brown, both vying with each other to micro control the crash.
It was obvious to anyone with any sense that the "economics" being followed was unsustainable. In the end I suspect even Prudence knew the game was up and was just desperately trying to wangle his filthy hands onto another 5 years of power. What he planned to do if he managed it I couldn't say. But he never did have much foresight.
Look at your history and you'll see that whenever Liebour get in the economy goes pfht down the crapper.
Yes, I'm bitter - I've spent all my working life with the red albatross and its effects round my neck.
If you want to know what the Corbinistas have to offer us just look at Venezuela. I'm told they've just hit 1000 percent inflation.
I've often wondered what would happen if voting was public at the hustings once more - Vote Labour - when it all goes pear shaped YOU pay. No, I'm not serious about public voting - the info would be to useful to lizards in power - of any colour - but we need to consider our responsibilities when we vote. There are no free lunches. Is it morally right to put in a bunch of nutters whose ideas have been shown time and again all over the world to be an utter failure and expect a magic bailout from those who new better?
Q the downvotes.
Wolfetone,
I could be wrong, but I suspect that the study of Economics isn't one of your strong points???
As to 5,000,000 sprogs in poverty - eh what, would this be absolute or relative poverty?
My grandad grew up with eight siblings in a two-room London East End slum in the early 1900s, no heating, no running water, no inside toilet, THAT was poverty.
[In the UK] having to scrimp and save a bit or heaven forbid, not having a 56 inch 3D TV or perhaps needing to learn how to do a domestic budget ISN'T poverty.
Also a year or so ago, we would regularly lean on our local food banks to put grub on the table, I regularly care for my wife (who has a chronic health condition) when she can't work and I am currently awaiting the outcome of a mandatory re-assessment for my ESA benefit whilst trying to startup a little business, so I have a better idea than most of life at the sharp end...
On a related note, have you written to the ex-President who actually signed off the legislation that fundamentally caused the sub-prime crisis in the first place to ask him to chip in???
So what is your plan to settle the deficit?
Btw 'soaking the rich' might make you feel better, but it would be like peeing in the wind re the deficit...
Chin up matey, the world is still spinning!
Jay
Realize your party has fucked up very badly so run away to leave the other party to clean up the shit. With any luck they'll have so much difficulty cleaning up the shit that your party will get back into power, at which point you can blame the other party for creating the shit in the first place.
But here's what us Euro's generally 'feel' about Britain and Europe
Britain never wanted to contribute to the EU. Thatcher only wrangled her way in because she was convinced the easiest way to keep it in check was to get inside and veto anything they didn't like. Britain has been doing this quite succesfully for decades, always extracting some advantage through extortion.
So now they want out. Fine. But remember everyone on this side of the channel wants their pound of flesh.
Incidentally, how may of those billions they'll be saving have found their way into future NHS budgets ?
Oh wait...Buckdich Lafarce (C) never said that, did he ? Or did he ?
"you're aware that virtually the only reason we're having a general election now is for strategic and political reasons related to Brexit- right?!"
Rubbish. It's everything to do with Labour being 21 points behind in the polls due to being an ongoing muppet show - and May needing a good excuse to change her mind on an early election after repeatedly saying she wouldn't go to the polls. Very little to do with Brexit...
FFS do a bit of research - Thatcher did not take the UK into Europe. You will find that there are about 10 years between these events.
As for extortion, you will also find that every EU member has their own form of 'special deal' - the UK is not the first nor the last. Read the details of the Common Agricultural Policy - it would be hilarious if it were not so tragic and wasteful.
But you're right about the pound of flesh - the UK has unfortunately shown that not only has the EU project lost its way, it also shows little intention of reforming and engaging with the population to find it again.
You must be prepared for the consequences if you call somebody's bluff and they actually do what they said they would *. So yes - having exposed the arrogance and short-sightedness of the EU commission by showing them to having failed has no doubt made them somewhat upset.
Tusk and Junckers are pissed as they have managed to lose parts of the empire almost single handedly by refusing to acknowledge issues that almost all member states are grappling with.
A better solution would have been to adopt the Hungarian position, ignore democratic process and just impose whatever measures were felt necessary and wait for the EU to throw the UK out - it probably would never have happened.
But in a way it could possibly be the best thing that could have happened to the EU - assuming that they recognise and do something about it. Otherwise expect this departure to be a starting point.
Said with an incredibly heavy heart as somebody who truly wants a European project to succeed and hoped it would never have got this far.
But without destruction there is rarely reinvention ....
* That also goes for the numpties that called the UK referendum without a plan if the 'wrong result' ever happened.
"Thatcher only wrangled her way in because she was convinced the easiest way to keep it in check was to get inside and veto anything they didn't like."
Look, I know facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of a rant but UK joined the EEC as it then was in 1973. Thatcher won her first general election in 1979. I don't think even the most determined alternative-facter would argue that 1979 came before 1973, at least not this side of 1BC.
Yes, facts do get in the way of a rant. Thatcher was secretary (of education ?) during the 1975 national referendum.
I do admit on being a bit low on knowledge of British political history, but if memory serves, Labour was AGAINST joining, while the tories DID advise the public to vote for it.
I didn't really follow politics back then, but from what I remember what I picked up later Thatcher was one of the driving forces within the Tory establishment to join, although at that time already expressing serious reservations about EU meddling in 'local' politics.
I SEEM to remember (but I'm not at al sure of this) Labour getting elected in the subsequent general election on the promice of tryong to reverse the decision to join, and failing miserably.
But if you have factual information to the contarary please let us know. Always eager to learn. Not big on foul language, though.
but if memory serves, Labour was AGAINST joining, while the tories DID advise the public to vote for it.
Labour was split, about ⅔ the cabinet were in favour of the EC, but a significant part was opposed to it.
I SEEM to remember (but I'm not at al sure of this) Labour getting elected in the subsequent general election on the promice of tryong to reverse the decision to join
No, they campaigned on the promise of renegotiation and then a referendum on whether to stay in (and doesn't that sound familiar) but it wasn't a major issue in the election itself. During the referendum campaign the party was split. The general mood at the time, certainly in England, was that staying in the EC was preferable. It was the Scots & N. Irish who were more sceptical back then.
If anything recent elections have told us that you can't be sure of anything. I think she will actually reduce her majority.
I also would caution writing off labour as corbyn's socialist agenda will probably be looking better than what the Tories are currently doing to the country to some.
The lib dems are also going to make gains from pro-eu supporters with very short memories.
If we had a party that worked for the people as they should then all the above would be out.
p.s. I didn't forget UKIP, I just think they are a bunch of snobby racist clowns.
@AC Generally agree with you but feel an urge to respond to your slight about "pro-eu supporters with very short memories."
Pro Eu supporters do not have short memories, just more pressing concerns for right now than to let long term grudges get in the way. The Tories could not have done a better job of rehabilitating the Lib-Dems. They certainly did a better job of it than the Lib-Dems themselves.
I have to laugh quietly to my self as I listen to all the pundits still talking about polls as if they were glowing pearls of wisdom uttered by god himself. They utter an aside about uncertainty of polls then on they gallop head on into their wilderness of certainty as if the past few years never happened.
"If anything recent elections have told us that you can't be sure of anything. I think she will actually reduce her majority."
A proportion of people who voted leave did so ti stick it to the government and may do so again. But Labour seem to still be self-destructing, which may balance that out. This ones a tough call as to which way it will go. I'd quite like to see another coalition to put the brakes on Mays ambitions, but on the other hand, we, as a country, don't want to be dithering during the Brexit negotiations. And don't trust Corbyn with his hands on the reins. At this stage I have no idea who I might vote for, although any vote against Labour genuinely won't count anyway. We've had a Labour MP almost since the Labour party was founded with little signs of a sea change in this constituency.
The lib dems are also going to make gains from pro-eu supporters with very short memories.
No need for short memories. Just a tradeoff: five years of socialist nonsense, vs a lifetime of isolationist nonsense and a PM making a blatant power-grab against Parliaments (plural, because it's not just Westminster: Scotland and NI also have views).
US tech firms hiked prices following the Brexit vote, citing the fall in the value of the pound versus the dollar – a move branded "Brexploitation" following the inevitable recovery, after which suppliers' prices did not fall again.
Sorry, which recovery was this? The £ still seems to be down at about $1.26 compared to $1.50 before the referendum, and between $1.5-$1.7 at many points during the previous few years.
Nah June is about right. It will take the Party that long to decide upon a new leader. Shouldn't be hard when there will only be around 100 MP's to choose from. The problem will be with the Union block vote. They'll want another lapdog to boss around.
Sad state of affairs for the opposition party.
We need an effective opposition but at the moment the Labour party is not it. IT is a party withing a party (Momentum) which I thought was illegal (in party rules) after the episode in the 1980's and the likes of Derek Hatton.
@Steve Davies 3
"The problem will be with the Union block vote. They'll want another lapdog to boss around."
The Union "block vote" was abolished by John Smith 20 years ago. Corbyn has won two leadership elections thanks to his popularity with party members.
"We need an effective opposition but at the moment the Labour party is not it. IT is a party withing a party (Momentum) which I thought was illegal (in party rules)"
The lack of effective opposition is due to the spoiling tactics of Progress - the real "party in a party". Sadly, there are too many Labour MPs who would rather another five years of tory rule, than back a leader from the left wing of the party.
Doesn't mean workers vote Labour. I predict a largish swing to the Lib Dems in the "employed counties" and turnout lower everywhere else, because really what's the point?
PS. Can I also add that hope that the Labour party hurry up and split already? In their current form they're no use to anyone. Enough infighting - split into two and do your fighting at the polling booth like everyone else.
Workers
Never vote Tory
Working-class Tories are a lot more common than you might think, especially post-war and even more so in recent years (who else buys the Daily Fail?). The classic example is Alf Garnett, although I suspect if they could make 'Til Death Us Do Part now (which they couldn't, the BBC is far too PC) he'd probably be having a hard time deciding between UKIP and a Tory party with a female leader.
The most telling thing about that series was that Johnny Speight wrote him to be a figure of ridicule, and was siad to be quite upset that so many people identified with Garnett.
This post has been deleted by its author
Totally off-topic, but did you know there was a German spin-off in the 1970ies? Alfred Tetzlaff. Same phenomenom, though - meant as satire, lots of "finally someone tells it how it is" comments.
"Workers
Never vote Tory"
Growing up in the 1950/60s working class it always seemed to me that many people were actually Tory in their basic outlook. Labour had an "elite" containing some apparently more liberal people - but most of the Party followers whom one might term "workers" did not ascribe to liberal policies.
My father, a miner, was a Labour activist in a Labour safe seat. One day the chairman of the housing committee opened a new row of council houses. A nice small redevelopment in the middle of town - unlike the large estates that were being built on the outskirts of the city. The street was named in this councillor's honour. A few days later he was the first occupant of one of the houses. That was when my father quit the Party.
"if they could make 'Til Death Us Do Part now (which they couldn't, the BBC is far too PC) "
The BBC recently remade an episode of "Till Death Do Us Part" with Simon Day playing Alf Garnett.
"The most telling thing about that series was that Johnny Speight wrote him to be a figure of ridicule, and was siad to be quite upset that so many people identified with Garnett."
Al Murray gets a lot of abuse on twitter from people upset that his character is a parody.
Mrs May is very fond of saying that politics is not a game, and yet here we all are, playing their games?:-) ..... giving the oxygen of publicity to their bonfires of desires and vanity projects/secret exclusive executive programs.
The difference nowadays though, and this is a fact which it would be self destructive to deny and/or attack, is that some who may be more than just a chosen few, are considerably smarter than any past or current phorm of opposition or competition are able to understand and defeat.
Or would you like to disagree to prove the point valid?
*And that is why No10 actions are more Brian Rix Whitehall farce than anything else remotely exciting.
"Mrs May is very fond of saying that politics is not a game"
Would this be the same Mrs May whose predecessor instigated the EU vote purely as a very badly-judged sop to placate the internal infighting of his (and her) own party's hard-right Eurosceptic tendency, the same Mrs May whose (now) Foreign Secretary became a flagwaver for the "Leave" camp, due to a sudden conversion that had absolutely *nothing* to do with political opportunism and advancing his own career?
The same Mrs May whose colleagues clearly had no plan in place for what would happen if the Leave voters did win, and who flailed about rudderless in the aftermath, stabbing each other in the back (thank you, Gove 90). It's not as if there was nothing more important than the future of the United Kingdom at stake, is it?
It's not as if the fact the Britain's membership of the EU was treated throughout as a political football for the Tories' own political ends is "playing games", is it?
EVAN: Ok huddle time, huddle time, huddle time, gather round guys. Great day today team (everybody “Yes!”) OK Ok that was a sliver star day. Ok tomorrow I want gold. Ok You see selling books is a game. It has rules. You need to learn those rules, yeah, and you need to get serious about them, because it’s not a game. Ok home time, off you go. You coming Manny?
It seems to me that Labour's best chance of nabbing this is to firmly oppose Brexit and announce that, if they win, they’ll pull us back from the brink and back into the E.U. They won’t though because, like the Conservative Party, they support Brexit.
Personally, I don’t support Brexit - and that means that there’s only one party (in England) that I can vote for - Liberal Democrat. If you oppose Brexit too then I urge you to vote Lib Dem this time round, let them mend the bridge to Europe (and then, if you so wish, vote them out again in 2022, once we’re safely ensconced in the E.U. again). If you’re in Scotland, of course, then all I can do is envy your position - you’ve got an obvious, and powerful, anti-Brexit party in the S.N.P.
Of course, most voters (even ardently anti-Brexit voters) won’t vote Lib Dem, fearing it to be a wasted vote. It probably is too, it's a one in a million shot, but from where I’m sitting it’s still the best option that we have.
If you’re pro-Brexit of course, then you’re spoiled for choice - Conservative, Labour, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats, NF…
It seems to me that Labour's best chance of nabbing this is to dump Corbyn
FTFY
I guess they won't get around to doing that until they've been humiliated again. Even then Militant 2015 seems to be so in control of the party that won't bother. After all militant policies worked so well in the 1980s didn't they? How does 18 years out of government sound?
The only way to avoid hard Tory Brexit under the skilled watch of Gove, Johnson, etc, is to vote to the most viable party to the left of the Tories in your particular constituency.
So if it's Tory-Labour-LibDem, vote Labour. If it's Tory-LibDem-Labour, vote LibDem. If it's Labour-Tory-whoever, vote Labour. If it's LibDem-whoever, vote LibDem.
Doesn't matter if that goes against all you believe in (apart from opposing Hard Brexit), you don't have to say who you voted for, and if Brexit is cancelled then imagine not having years of Brexit news in the media! So you deal with it. Tactical voting.
If you want hard Brexit, then you cannot trust Shifty U-Turn May, so vote UKIP.
If you’re pro-Brexit of course, then you’re spoiled for choice - Conservative, Labour, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats, NF…
Current polls show Brexit as more popular than during the referendum, running at 55% last week. Hardly surprising that a majority of parties, across the spectrum, support it.
I've been looking at our constituency result from 2015. Tories ~20,000, Labour ~ 17000, UKIP ~ 8000, Lib dem ~ 900. My wife and I have spent the best part of an hour trying to decide whether to vote tactically. Clearly LIb Dems are they way to go if you are anti-brexit but I'm not certain they could claw back ~ 12,000 votes in a constituency which has always switched between Con and Lab. So if it's tactical we have to vote Labour which would be really painful given their current shambolic showing.
Labours core vote (the working poor) was the bit of the country voting most heavily in favour of Brexit. If Labour turned around and said that they are going to block Brexit if they get elected then Labour would be utterly annihilated as their core vote decides to sit at home watching TV instead of turning out to vote.
Therefore, any Labour leader with a shred of intelligence would not make such a commitment.
Of course, if Labour doesn't make that commitment then the self described intellectuals who don't have the intellect to come to this conclusion themselves will vote for the lib dems, which simply splits the vote and clears the way for a Conservative victory of historic proportions, at which point those same "intellectuals" will then turn on the labour leader like a pack of rapid dogs for losing the election.
Hence why May is going for the election now, where she also stands to gain the UKIP vote back.
"Labours core vote (the working poor) was the bit of the country voting most heavily in favour of Brexit".
You seem to believe they are all too dump to realize they have been conned. While there might be both winners and losers with a Brexit the working poor will not belong to the winners.
@ ITnoob
My advice- vote honestly. You can never be happy voting for the lesser of 2 evils when the one you see as right has to be abandoned. I say this as someone who voted UKIP previously (I know your leaning the other way) and it might make you unpopular or people might try to blame you for not tactically supporting Satan instead of Beelzebub but they are the ones lying to themselves.
You are in a better position than we were in, none of the mainstream parties wanted brexit as an option and if you still count the libs as a main party they are the lone voice to do what you want. But this is a general election and brexit isnt the only policy so be sure it is what you want.
Simply people complain about there only being 2 parties and then tactically vote for one of those 2 parties. They can never be happy and never be satisfied with the result they are always against the government and moan the gov doesnt represent the people or listen. Vote honestly and win or lose you know you did right. And even though UKIP lost the last general election they still won.
Anyone hear May's speech? She put up a bunch of strawmen about all those nasty people - like the house of Lords - trying to frustrate her, and how she needs to crush them. Some outright lies about those Bad People.
Last time I recollect a prime minister doing that was when Blair told us the French had promised to veto any possible UN resolution to invade Iraq (when all they had in fact promised to veto was any such motion while the weapons inspectors were at work and getting cooperation). Playing the anti-French card was the sure sign that invasion was imminent. This time, I guess it's a ****storm of blame forthcoming.
Yes. She emphasised the *Unelected* Lords. When they do something you like then they're a valuable balance to power. When you dislike their actions they suddenly become *Unelected* and you make sure everyone knows it.
Cameron got them all in this mess by playing politics with his referendum, which he couldn't possibly lose, to try and quell his parties malcontents, and now May is doing the same to quell all her opponents. "Oh no, Nicola Sturgeon; we're far too busy with Brexit to have another independence referendum. Lets have a general election instead!" BAH...
"Feeding children properly is generally regarded as a good thing. It is also an investment in the future many of us share at least a portion of."
Feeding and educating the next generation is a no-brainer, If only out of self-interest. After all, who is going to feed and clothe us in our dotage? Or will today's children solve the housing shortage and pension crisis by instigating a "Logan's Run" style policy of geriatric care?
Without ~200,000 extra workers each year paying every penny of their tax towards the extra pensions for the retirees, or ~5% tax increases across the board over the next 10 years, Logan's Run is the only other option to pay the pension deficit. Make it 80 instead of 21 though.
Before the election, maybe someone will be able to explain to her in words of half a syllable how the internet actually works and how encryption is an "all-or-nothing" affair. She seems impervious to the sound advice given by numerous experts in the field that there can be no half-way house. If the "good" guys can get in, so can the bad guys. I despair with so-called politicians who are talking out of their backsides all the time about topics they basically know b-all about. Trump is another prime example.
Can anyone confirm the veracity of this tale of concern ...... Did Theresa May time her snap election to limit the damage of an expenses scandal?
*Remote Access Trojan
Who could confirm it but Theresa and her compadres. Not sure Russian Television is the most reliable source for stories of this kind. It was being talked about on BBC radio 4 this afternoon and it would be an awesome distraction. though a bit severe for her own side. Risky too, given recent polling successes.
Be the following further report ...... Farage on a Rampage? ..... fake news from a hostile non-state actor or a dirty truth seeking sanctuary in a party of fool tools, Geoffrey W?
@ amanfromMars 1
I hope Farage doesnt try to get elected. UKIP fell apart when he left and thats fine, they won. He would be one of the better people to negotiate with the EU because he wont put up with their nonsense or delusions but there is so little time for campaigning (a blessing and a curse) that May has this in the bag unless the Tories do something radically stupid to lose it.
@ Justicesays
"Sure, I find that calling the people you are about to negotiate with a bunch of lazy tossers is definitely the best way to begin important negotiations."
It did burst their little bubble didnt it. I smiled a lot after watching that, and when he exposes the many problems the EU has to the EU politicians. Maybe they will now do something about their many faults now we are leaving.
As I said he would ignore their delusions and only accept a deal that was good for the UK. The wool is slowly coming from the EU's eyes as they realise we dont NEED them. They however do rely on us, and that isnt a statement that we should be awkward with them just an observation they are coming around to quickly. We shouldnt use it to bully them as they keep trying to do to us. We should go ahead as an open country and treat the world equally. Unfortunately some of our politicians seem to be as petty as the ones over there.
"It did burst their little bubble didn't it. I smiled a lot after watching that"
So you think that Ad hominem attacks are fine, and a good way to negotiate or win arguments?
Fine.
You twat.
"Unfortunately some of our politicians seem to be as petty as the ones over there"
And Farage has the distinction of being petty both here *and* over there. His action was the fucking *definition* of petty.
@ Justicesays
"So you think that Ad hominem attacks are fine, and a good way to negotiate or win arguments?"
No but after putting up with it for so long it was nice to see it being given back. And after having dished it out for so long it appears the EU and staunch remainers cant seem to take it coming back.
The wool is slowly coming from the EU's eyes as they realise we dont NEED them. They however do rely on us, and that isnt a statement that we should be awkward with them just an observation they are coming around to quickly. .... codejunky
What on earth would they be relying on us for, codejunky, other than the fulfilling of our hearts desires with the purchase via our pretty fiat currency paper of their myriad goods and erotic services?
Are you suggesting that leading secret intelligence services are for sale and being sold, for such are solely that which certainly drivers the uncertain future and all current upcoming events which are mired in chaos and the madness of mayhem in deed indeed, for it seems to be what needs to be for now in order to drain the swamp and purge corrupt systems.
You realise of course that it is individual persons of vital interest, and not spooky agencies of national security, who/which provide all such proprietary intellectual property, and the world has its many rich sources for the purchase of such as can so easily lead sublimely and surreally with IT and Media their playgrounds of first choice for Cyber Command and Creative Control of Computers and Communications ...... Man and Machines.
I Kid U Not.
And you think Blighty is able to provide such Advanced IntelAIgent Lead? Where is the almighty evidence for Main Stream Media to leak it and deliver lashings of fresh hope in the present impotent sees of great despair and depression and recession?
@ amanfromMars 1
"What on earth would they be relying on us for"
This is interesting. Are we so insignificant that we dont matter in the EU and if so why is this such a big deal to them? Anyway- our vote against bad EU ideas (Germany commented on this), Euro clearing (they are realising how hard it is to move the banks), trade (the point of the project originally), intelligence services (from what I hear ours is better than theirs), and confidence (as an early member and developed country our exit has meaning).
I must admit I have no idea what the rest of your post is about.
It is only a big deal to them [the EU], and everyone else too for that matter, if their intelligence services are better than anyone else's.
I must admit that I am not aware of that being a demonstrable fact in the light of the evidence being presented in the media in all of the prevailing fanciful fictions.
Such though does invent and present an opportunity and position to be filled, doesn't it.
:-) cc... GCHQ/MI5 {i.e. MOD}/MI6 {i.e. Foreign Office}/Bank of England/Buckingham Palace :-)
I Kid U Not. Poe's Law Rules in Anyone's and Everyone's Reign.:-)
And there are more than just a few revolutionary ideas shared in this post, codejunky.:-)
"Sure, I find that calling the people you are about to negotiate with a bunch of lazy tossers is definitely the best way to begin important negotiations."
Farage is quality. We need him + BoJo in charge of negotiations to show the EU we really don't care what they think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY
"to show the EU we really don't care what they think:".
Why would they, they define the rules now. Look at the bright side, the more cool and intelligent part is in charge now and soon the unelected bureaucrats will take over and everybody will cool down.
Believe it or not, and isn't it funny, any country would survive half a year without even one politician but not even one week without its unelected bureaucrats.
I sometimes wonder if you Brits ever actually understood that old superb program "Yes Minister". Look again, who is up in the clouds and who is in charge. The damned truth is that there is only one profession where absolutely no qualifications are required and the unelected bureaucrats are not in that group. Hard as it is to understand, I have survived, regardless of the fact that my dentist is unelected too.
"they define the rules now"
Not for us they don't. That and control of borders were the 2 major reasons for Brexit.
We are in the positon of being able to walk away, not pay their £50 billion, and switch to WTO rules - knowing it will likely hurt them more than us. The EU are in a much weaker positon that we are.
They have already made it clear that they know this and are trying to make ransom demands - as well summed up by Farage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=54&v=vTIRTyNUoiA
"soon the unelected bureaucrats will take over"
That's already how it works in the EU.
When she became leader would have been the best time. That way there would have been no question as to the way Brexit would pan out.
Now the timing could bite her on her leather trizers. The Lib Dems will go from strength to strength, there is nothing to stop them. The coalition gave people a taster, and for all the flak that was flung, that wasn't a dire experience. Cable is rubbing his hands with anticipation, and so is Clegg. Ashdown of course, predicted this would happen.
>Now the timing could bite her on her leather trizers.
Not just the timing - the act itself is dumb. She's doing this to free herself from her own backbenchers - but the only thing keeping them in check now is their narrow majority.
If she's returned with a landslide, all those fractures in the Tory party (which have not been resolved by Brexit*), will explode on her. Her enemies aren't across the dispatch box; they're behind her.
[*There's a myth that the divisions in the Tory party were all about the EU - but the EU was just a proxy, for a much deeper divide, going much further back.]
I can see her point. This way she doesn't have to face the electorate post-Brexit.
In 2020 we'd be a year post-Brexit and everyone could see how it was going to work out and, whatever the deal, she'd not win.
In any Brexit insufficiently hard to produce an economic disaster that would take at least a decade to climb out of she'd be hounded by the UKIP/Gove true believers for having been too soft.
Otherwise she'd have to face a large percentage of the population who'd finally be cottoning on to the idea that their jobs would be migrating to the EU.
This way she gets an extra couple of years to enjoy running her police state without having to look over her shoulder at the ECJ and, if she gets her way, the ECHR although that might be more difficult. About the end of March 2022 she announces her retirement and leaves someone else to sort out the mess.
- May wins by a landslide and the country is no longer hostage to the Tory lunatic fringe: Win.
- While Corbyn is tested in the crucible of reality and found wanting: Win.
- Alternatively, a resurgent Liberal party blunts May (or even denies her an outright majority): Win.
- Alternatively, Labour extricates itself from its current, painful Yoga* position and actually achieves something: Win.
* Translated from the original Hindi, the technique translates, roughly, as the La La La I'm Not Listening posture, and involves the expert practitioner bending over backwards and inserting their head into their own bottom. The current Labour leadership are all experts at getting themselves into this position.
Lets hope whomever gets elected brings in a law pronto that brings back the birch, hot tarring and feathering, and indeed hanging, drawing and quartering as punishment for those who inject nasty code into adverts such as those on here that make automatic redirects to dodgy websites pretending to be "Chrome Update!"
Cheeky fuckers.
Oh, and whomever at the REG is keeping an eye on where ads are sourced from here, I suggest you buck your ideas up.
The hot air is escaping the balloon. I think May has come to understand that the enthusiasm for a hard brexit is diminishing. And as always it's about the next election so she has decided there is more hot air in the balloon now than in 2020. And then there is, of course, the question if she was lying when she was against Brexit or has she been lying to you since the referendum. Politics. This time dear Brits vote using what you have between your ears and stop listening to the talking arseholes.
There is only one way to deal with the EU, take part, make it better, stop whining, it's a work in progress.
PS. nobody is going to steal the pound, Turkey is not joining the EU against your will, you will do well as long as you use your head for thinking, and you can restrict the number of immigrants just by using the EU laws available like some other EU countries do.
There is only one way to deal with the EU, take part, make it better, stop whining, it's a work in progress.
20 years of taking part has only confirmed that it will never change, and is a work in decline. Every time anyone highlights a problem the only response is "we just need 'more Europe', that will fix it". It's a pity that things have reached this stage, but right now the only way to fix it is to break it & start again with just common market & not a political/fiscal union, painful though that may be.
Can I just say, I made the brain-shinkingly bad mistake of reading some of the BBC HYS comments. After being slightly ill for a few hours, I came to read the comments here.
It's refreshing to know that, while some are misplaced ( :D ), the opinions here on the whole appear to have been written by adults with far less blue cabbage between their ears.
Can El Reg just start a sideline for politics? Perhaps call it 'The Reality Check'.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
