General Election June 8

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Jun 2017, 21:05

johnhemming2 wrote:True, but they would have to get something out of it that they really want (eg a referendum on a united ireland that they might win). As it stands I think a majority would vote to remain with the UK.

You have no idea what they may want and neither do we until we know the contents of the deal between the Tories and the DUP.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Jun 2017, 22:45

So, anyone else notice the BBC in overdrive over the last few days trying to construct a narrative of how 80% of the electorate voting for parties in the election who have accepted Brexit (Labour and Tories), whilst simultaneously rejecting parties who wish to significantly dilute or reverse it (Lib Dems and SNP), somehow means the electorate must want a "softer" Brexit?

I only hope to God Labour do not jump on this bandwagon of bullshit because, if they do, they will haemorrhage all of the working class votes they have recently won back that they had hitherto lost to UKIP and the Conservatives.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 14 Jun 2017, 07:19

Littl John, what do you think the electorate wants in respect to Brexit?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Jun 2017, 10:34

Lord Beria3 wrote:Littl John, what do you think the electorate wants in respect to Brexit?

As I mentioned on another thread:

For me, the bottom line is that we get borders and law making back under sovereign control or we walk. By that I mean, even, I am not averse to any given UK government making a deal, including one I may personally not like, with the EU on any of the above. But, that deal should be reversible by parliament. So, for example, I may dislike, but could democratically live with, a government being elected on a ticket of continued mass immigration, so long as any future government could be elected on a ticket to reverse such a policy. Thus, any policy that is not democratically reversible by act of UK parliament is not acceptable because this goes to the heart of the issue for me.

I am a nation state democrat and, the more fundamental the issue vis a vis the nation state, the more nation state democratically inclined I am. There is clearly nothing more fundamental than who gets to decide who makes the laws that govern us. It's as a simple as that for me, in the end.

I also suspect my position on this is not too dissimilar to the vast majority of those Labour voters, certainly from the North, who have just come back to Labour. But, their loyalty can now no longer be assured. I think Corbyn understands this well enough. Hence his public acceptance of Brexit as evidenced by the Labour Party's three line whip on Article 50 and his and McDonald's public statements during the election acknowledging our leaving of the Single Market and the end of free movement of people across our borders.

But, in any event, from my own perspective, whatever else is true, in the period leading up to and including another election, assuming it comes in the next 6 to 12 months, the territory of debate needs to remain firmly on internal political issues because, on those, Labour will win hands down with the electorate.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Jun 2017, 11:43

The British electorate clearly did NOT vote for a reversal of Brexit or, even a significant dilution of it in the general election or, at the very least, the election results are completely independent of the Brexit referendum and any suggestion otherwise is a lie.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 14 Jun 2017, 11:47

Announcement of Tory DUP deal delayed again.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Jun 2017, 11:48

That sounds like it is turning to shit fast

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 14 Jun 2017, 11:59

I don't expect any party to do anything about mass immigration, because they haven't shown any interest in answering the question 'why do we have mass immigration?' in 70 years of ramming it down our throats. The answer is - because the rentier+finance class wants it. The theory about not paying for state pensions without endless hoardes was [now it's probably true after ~100 years of tinkering with public finances] just a scam as they could have given the facts to the public re old age and explained the funding required. We all know that public finance statistics are just 'cost-plus * 10' or whatever US neocon jargon we choose. I was a kid 40 years ago when they started to tell us roadbuilding cost £1000000 per mile [we've got to save the crested newts] and other guff. Even today, if you offered every householder £50 per hole, and the use of some safety barriers for a week, there would be no potholes in our roads.

If you wonder where our money goes:

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2010/08/22 ... ly-hidden/

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/10/24 ... 0k-a-year/

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Jun 2017, 12:23

Deals should not be announced quickly. It should always take some time to be resolved.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Jun 2017, 12:25

In a strict sense control has never moved away from the UK. We have always had the powers to exert that control, but had an agreement as to limitations.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 14 Jun 2017, 12:33

johnhemming2 wrote:In a strict sense control has never moved away from the UK. We have always had the powers to exert that control, but had an agreement as to limitations.

Who is this "we" to which you refer John Hemming?

I don't recall, nor do many other people in this country recall being consulted if WE wanted the levels of immigration this country has experienced over the last several decades.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Jun 2017, 15:34

We (is/are) the UK as a country as a whole.

We don't know what sort of deal is likely to arise at the moment. However, the power has always rested with the UK to change its relationships with other countries. For many things they have to agree as well.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 14 Jun 2017, 15:39

Little John wrote:That sounds like it is turning to shit fast

Multiple species of shit, probably. I reckon there's some serious pressure coming not to sign any deal with the DUP whatsoever, because if anything goes wrong with the peace process - or the deadlock in Stormont cannot be broken - then it will be the tories who will take the blame for it. That sort of shit could damage their reputation and electoral prospects for a long time. But I'm also guessing they've got bigger problems regarding Brexit and the euroskeptic wing of the tory party. Even with the DUP, their majority is tiny. And even without Sinn Fein making their life even more difficult, it would only take 6 tories to vote with the opposition to prevent the Queen's Speech passing through the commons. If as seems likely, there is now intense pressure to "water down brexit", I would imagine that quite a lot more than 6 tory MPs would threaten to vote against it in an attempt to pressurise TM into not watering it down. They will be arguing that a clear majority of the electorate voted against freedom of movement, and that going back on it would be viewed as a gross betrayal, not just of the electorate in general, but also of most diehard tory voters. And all she's got to offer them in return is the avoidance of an immediate general election or a Corbyn minority government. But they'll have an answer to that: at least if Brexit has to be watered down, and the brexiteers and tory voters angered, then Corbyn will be held responsible instead of the tories.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of whatever meetings TM is having right now. What an almighty cock-up!

Just imagine if they can't make this deal work and Corbyn can't cobble together a coalition either. Surely there would then have to be another election, immediately, with TM still in place as tory leader. They'd be annihilated. Corbyn would win easily.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Jun 2017, 16:35

It is worth understanding the interests of the people involved. The tories don't want to lose their seats or the ministerial salaries and the DUP don't want Corbyn to be PM.

In part this is why the tories could probably run a minority government without too much of a risk.

Remember that Ministers (of which there are around 100) get additional dosh on top of their money as MPs.

It is, however, somewhere between SNAFU and FUBAR, however.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 14 Jun 2017, 17:18

johnhemming2 wrote:It is worth understanding the interests of the people involved. The tories don't want to lose their seats or the ministerial salaries and the DUP don't want Corbyn to be PM.

In part this is why the tories could probably run a minority government without too much of a risk.

Remember that Ministers (of which there are around 100) get additional dosh on top of their money as MPs.

Sure, but some of these people don't actually need that money, and some have been fighting to get the UK out of the EU for the last 30 years. Plus some of them are in safe seats which the tories are likely to win whatever happens, especially if the tory candidate voted against a watered-down brexit. There's no way John Redwood is going to lose in Wokingham, or John Whittingdale lose Maldon.