UK GENERAL ELECTION 2017

steven · Tennis legend

UK GENERAL ELECTION 2017

Vandenburg · Futures level

My problem with Theresa is her robotic nature.

This morning she should have come out and said- sorry, we obv did not value to the young vote or listen to you

She should have admitted all her u-turns instead of talking rubbish

Instead of trash talking labour all the time, she should have actually talked about her policies

Silly women.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

So where does this leave us with the Brexit negotiations. CNN has had several so called experts on today they are completely split on what type of Brexit we will now get. Half of them are saying that the election yesterday was a complete rejection of the Hard Brexit and will force Theresa May to aim for a much softer version. The other half are saying we are now more likely to get a much harder Brexit as she will have to satisfy the hard liners otherwise they will veto any deal when it goes back to parliament.

We have also had European politicians (the German Foreign Minister, I think) suggesting that the UK might now have to think twice about Brexit and they would all like the UK to change its collective mind. This suggests to me that the European attitude will push even more for the worst deal possible for the UK in the hope that the UK backs down and reverses its decision.

I stand by my prediction that no agreement will ever be reached, certainly not within the 20 months or so that we have left. What then ? The trade can work under WTO rules. But the people who live in another country ? What happens to them when no deal is reached ?

Dare I also ask what happens, if Theresa May starts the negotiations in 10 days time, gets a vote of no confidence from her party, resigns and leaves Boris (or whoever) to take over. Boris then decides he wants an outright majority, calls a general election and loses. Now have Jeremy Corbyn taking over the negotiations with yet another different approach.

The only thing for sure is that the whole situation is a complete bl**dy mess. Well done Theresa. You have made the UK a laughing stock. disbelief

JonH · All-time great

Bob in Spain wrote:
So where does this leave us with the Brexit negotiations. CNN has had several so called experts on today they are completely split on what type of Brexit we will now get. Half of them are saying that the election yesterday was a complete rejection of the Hard Brexit and will force Theresa May to aim for a much softer version. The other half are saying we are now more likely to get a much harder Brexit as she will have to satisfy the hard liners otherwise they will veto any deal when it goes back to parliament.

We have also had European politicians (the German Foreign Minister, I think) suggesting that the UK might now have to think twice about Brexit and they would all like the UK to change its collective mind. This suggests to me that the European attitude will push even more for the worst deal possible for the UK in the hope that the UK backs down and reverses its decision.

I stand by my prediction that no agreement will ever be reached, certainly not within the 20 months or so that we have left. What then ? The trade can work under WTO rules. But the people who live in another country ? What happens to them when no deal is reached ?

Dare I also ask what happens, if Theresa May starts the negotiations in 10 days time, gets a vote of no confidence from her party, resigns and leaves Boris (or whoever) to take over. Boris then decides he wants an outright majority, calls a general election and loses. Now have Jeremy Corbyn taking over the negotiations with yet another different approach.

The only thing for sure is that the whole situation is a complete bl**dy mess. Well done Theresa. You have made the UK a laughing stock.

And that is why she should resign. Put the the process on hold, sort ourselves out, new leader, new election if needs be and then decide how to move forwards on Brexit. However, my view is that at the end of all this, we WILL end up staying in Europe (which I would be happy with) but I think the whole process will be so fraught, and over time the public will shift its view, we will end up staying.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

JonH wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:
So where does this leave us with the Brexit negotiations. CNN has had several so called experts on today they are completely split on what type of Brexit we will now get. Half of them are saying that the election yesterday was a complete rejection of the Hard Brexit and will force Theresa May to aim for a much softer version. The other half are saying we are now more likely to get a much harder Brexit as she will have to satisfy the hard liners otherwise they will veto any deal when it goes back to parliament.

We have also had European politicians (the German Foreign Minister, I think) suggesting that the UK might now have to think twice about Brexit and they would all like the UK to change its collective mind. This suggests to me that the European attitude will push even more for the worst deal possible for the UK in the hope that the UK backs down and reverses its decision.

I stand by my prediction that no agreement will ever be reached, certainly not within the 20 months or so that we have left. What then ? The trade can work under WTO rules. But the people who live in another country ? What happens to them when no deal is reached ?

Dare I also ask what happens, if Theresa May starts the negotiations in 10 days time, gets a vote of no confidence from her party, resigns and leaves Boris (or whoever) to take over. Boris then decides he wants an outright majority, calls a general election and loses. Now have Jeremy Corbyn taking over the negotiations with yet another different approach.

The only thing for sure is that the whole situation is a complete bl**dy mess. Well done Theresa. You have made the UK a laughing stock.
And that is why she should resign. Put the the process on hold, sort ourselves out, new leader, new election if needs be and then decide how to move forwards on Brexit. However, my view is that at the end of all this, we WILL end up staying in Europe (which I would be happy with) but I think the whole process will be so fraught, and over time the public will shift its view, we will end up staying.

Can't argue with any of that. Yes, she should resign, we should seek more time (although not sure the EU would accept that) and I do believe that the chances of us staying in, have increased, albeit slightly. If only all those young people who came out to vote yesterday, had done so a year ago in the referendum, I think all of this could have been avoided. I don't like many of Jeremy Corbyn's policies, but you have to give him credit for getting the younger generation out to vote for him. Pity he didn't campaign as vigorously for the referendum.

steven · Tennis legend

Bob in Spain wrote:
So where does this leave us with the Brexit negotiations. CNN has had several so called experts on today they are completely split on what type of Brexit we will now get. Half of them are saying that the election yesterday was a complete rejection of the Hard Brexit and will force Theresa May to aim for a much softer version. The other half are saying we are now more likely to get a much harder Brexit as she will have to satisfy the hard liners otherwise they will veto any deal when it goes back to parliament.

It's very hard to guess how things will turn out now, though presumably a second referendum could be won for remain if the younger voters came out in force for that as well. I'm not sure we'll get one though.

However, the argument that we are now likely to get a much harder Brexit as May will have to satisfy the hard liners to stop them vetoing any deal when it goes back to parliament doesn't make much sense - given that there must be quite a majority in the new parliament in favour of a soft (or no) Brexit, I'd have thought she has more chance of being vetoed if she goes for too hard a Brexit than the other way round.

That chance of no deal at all (in many ways even 'harder' than a negotiated hard Brexit) has probably increased though.

Despite me using the term here, I'm not sure anyone really knows what 'hard' (or 'soft') Brexit means anyway, and the idea that the UK would have much control over what is offered was always pretty laughable, even more so now.

wimdledont · Challenger level

I think that TM called the election because she knew that her previous majority was insufficient for her to get a parliamentary majority to ratify whatever is negotiated in the Brexit negotiations.

She could hardly go to the country on the basis of "I can't control my own party", but that's the truth. She needed a majority of 100 or so MPs, with a personal mandate for herself.

Now she cannot negotiate any Brexit deal, hard, soft, poached, coddled, or none, that has any chance of passing the Commons.

The Brexit talks are important. The aim should be to negotiate as amicable an arrangement as possible with our most important customers, our most critical suppliers, and our closest diplomatic allies.

Boris made his reputation in British politics as the Telegraph's Europe correspondent. His reporting from Brussels delighted the "bast@rds" of the Major's Tory party, as it consisted of a thin tissue of exaggerations, nonsense, bombastic insults and plain lies. This is not forgotten in Brussels, and Boris will never be trusted. Davis is a belligerant head-banger. Fox owes his allegiance to various mid-Atlantic far-right billionaire networks who despise the EU as an impediment to their crusade to render the planet uninhabitable.

Farage, to judge by his egregiously obnoxious behaviour in the European Parliament for several decades, seems to believe that the object of British diplomacy in Europe should be to cause as much offence as possible and, in a strange reversal of the diplomatic aims of the UK over the previous several centuries, to ensure that the whole of the continent becomes united against us.

I am not optimistic.

indiana · Tennis legend

It's a mess.

Yes IF ONLY Corbyn had mobilised himself and many of the young, many who did care but weren't enthused about the campaign, behind REMAIN !!!

A generally much more positive and energised campaign and that should have been a slam dunk remain win.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
It's a mesd.

Yes IF ONLY Corbyn had mobilised himself and many of the young, many who did care but weren't enthused about the campaign, behind REMAIN !!!
A generally much more positive and energised campaign and that should have been a slam dunk remain win.

Ain't that the truth ...... cry

indiana · Tennis legend

Well the one good thing for many of us up here is that at least IndyRef2 has hopefully been put on the backburner if the heat not as fully turned down as I would personally like. Nicola Sturgeon says she accepts discussion re IndyRef2 had a big bearing on results and is going to consider things.

It is not, as I read earlier, that independence is not wanted. It most certainly still is by a large mass of the Scottish people, if still probably a minority, and the SNP remains clearly the biggest party.

It is the thought of having another campaign and vote so soon after the last one that so puts off so many ( I am sure including many whose ultimate wish is independence ).

Nationalists spoke about the original vote as the last chance for a "generation". Things may indeed evolve, including Brexit, but for now the Scottish people have sent Nicola Sturgeon away to think again.

Nicola is very much an opportunist and that is no great criticism for a politician who clearly genuinely and avidly believes in independence. She wants to strike while she thinks the iron is still relatively hot. But sorry ...

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I am not sure that Jeremy Corbyn was ever fully behind the remain campaign. In this election however, he has perhaps got the best result of all for himself - a near miss but without ever having to put his policies to the test. With apologies to Topemp, if he is reading this, to me, the Corbyn manifesto was nothing more that a string of expensive promises that he felt able to make, confident in the fact that he would never have to actually put them into action. We had more money for the NHS, schools, cancelling of student fees, keeping the triple lock for pensioners, increased funding for social care, massive infrastructure projects and buying back the railways/utilities into public ownership. All of this was going to be paid for by bumping up corporation tax by 5% even though the stats showed that reducing corporation tax had actually increased tax revenues through attracting more businesses to the UK. But of all his policies, the one that scared me the most was promising to give more power back to the trade unions.

Targeting the younger voters was a sensible policy because none of them would remember the turmoil of the 70's where the trade unions would regularly hold the country to ransom. I remember living through blackouts when the electricity was turned off for 3 hours every day because of lack of supply. This was followed by even tougher times when Thatcher fought to remove the strangle hold that the unions had on the rest of the country.

So yes, Mr Corbyn. Winning votes is easy if you simply promise to give everyone a lot of money. The problems would have come if you had been called on to fulfill those promises.

Having said all that, we have been left with Theresa May, whose arrogance knows no bounds and is matched only by her complete incompetence. She called an unnecessary election, chose to run it like presidential campaign, focusing solely on herself and then refused point blank to take part in debates. Her strategy was to simply keep parroting the words "strong and stable" but failed to back that up with deeds. Quite simply, she has to go NOW.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

Bob in Spain wrote:
I am not sure that Jeremy Corbyn was ever fully behind the remain campaign. In this election however, he has perhaps got the best result of all for himself - a near miss but without ever having to put his policies to the test. With apologies to Topemp, if he is reading this, to me, the Corbyn manifesto was nothing more that a string of expensive promises that he felt able to make, confident in the fact that he would never have to actually put them into action. We had more money for the NHS, schools, cancelling of student fees, keeping the triple lock for pensioners, increased funding for social care, massive infrastructure projects and buying back the railways/utilities into public ownership. All of this was going to be paid for by bumping up corporation tax by 5% even though the stats showed that reducing corporation tax had actually increased tax revenues through attracting more businesses to the UK. But of all his policies, the one that scared me the most was promising to give more power back to the trade unions.

Targeting the younger voters was a sensible policy because none of them would remember the turmoil of the 70's where the trade unions would regularly hold the country to ransom. I remember living through blackouts when the electricity was turned off for 3 hours every day because of lack of supply. This was followed by even tougher times when Thatcher fought to remove the strangle hold that the unions had on the rest of the country.

So yes, Mr Corbyn. Winning votes is easy if you simply promise to give everyone a lot of money. The problems would have come if you had been called on to fulfill those promises.

Having said all that, we have been left with Theresa May, whose arrogance knows no bounds and is matched only by her complete incompetence. She called an unnecessary election, chose to run it like presidential campaign, focusing solely on herself and then refused point blank to take part in debates. Her strategy was to simply keep parroting the words "strong and stable" but failed to back that up with deeds. Quite simply, she has to go NOW.

We must stop allowing them to con us like this. There is money for absolutely everything in Corbyn's manifesto. We have allowed this period of austerity to scare us into being prudent and reserved. This is all well and good with our own bank accounts, but there is simply no truth to the concept that the government can run out of money. The deficit is a mere political tool, and the only question we must ask ourselves is: how big a state do we want? If we want universal free healthcare, well-funded and free education, and to protect the pensions and claims of the elderly, we can have them all without any risk whatsoever. If we want libertarianism, and a small state, then we will allow the austerity myth to continue.

indiana · Tennis legend

All from the money tree ...

OK, maybe major tax rises for 'ordinary' people since screwing the rich won't do it ( even if you could get a fair bit more tax from them as there would be some counterproductive effect like for Corporation Tax ).

Yes, I too remember the 1974-79 period.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 10th of June 2017 09:18:40 PM

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

indiana wrote:
All from the money tree ...

Yes, absolutely! There is a money tree. Hence why nobody questions the origin of 'emergency' funding such as nuclear weapons and banking bailouts.

BeefyDeedz · Pro player

indiana wrote:
All from the money tree ...
OK, maybe major tax rises for 'ordinary' people since screwing the rich won't do it ( even if you could get a fair bit more tax from them as there would be some counterproductive effect like for Corporation Tax ).
Yes, I too remember the 1974-79 period.

-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 10th of June 2017 09:18:40 PM

Similarly, regarding your edited point, excessive taxation is a byproduct of this ruse. Make the ordinary people suffer in order to fund the things that they need. In reality, neither higher taxation nor a money tree is necessary; we can afford all of these things.