Ge 2017

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

False against the manifesto they were elected on.

So, would you be condoning a party who made several promises that helped them get elected, who then left them out of the Queens speech and never carried them through but forced you to wait 5 years before you could vote them out?

Well that is (in inverse) what happened to the LibDems with tuition fees - and look where they are today

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But if they ask the nation to vote for them on a set of pledges then it's pretty fraudulent if they don't enact any afterwards. I'm not stupid, I do understand the politics but despite what they say - the country does NOT vote for a coalition

How do you counter that though? If we had a system of PR then a coalition would be almost inevitable and parties would have to factor that in before an election. Deals would have to be announced in their manifesto's and people would have a better idea of what they are voting for. FPtP does not encourage this way of working.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Ruthies 12 MP's now hold the key to Brexit.
Scotland voted strongly to remain in Europe
No wonder she has gone into hiding and actually running away from the press.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Just apropos not very much at all - but on under 24s and Corbyn.

My 22 yr old daughter voted and grabbed me on Friday evening. She said "have you seen this Dad?" as she thrust her iPhone 7 into my hands. "Watch it". It was a video by Corbyn thanking all who had voted Labour in the election. It was a very good and authentic statement of thanks, and as I watched it my daughter said "it's great isn't it Dad - it puts a shiver down my spine" QED.

My daughter has much interest in social issues (she did a Sociology degree) and politics, but has not actually been very politically engaged before this GE.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Just apropos not very much at all - but on under 24s and Corbyn.

My 22 yr old daughter voted and grabbed me on Friday evening. She said "have you seen this Dad?" as she thrust her iPhone 7 into my hands. "Watch it". It was a video by Corbyn thanking all who had voted Labour in the election. It was a very good and authentic statement of thanks, and as I watched it my daughter said "it's great isn't it Dad - it puts a shiver down my spine" QED.

Apparently Corbyn was down with the grime massive who had quite a big influence in the way the kids voted. I would pay good money to see the Tory party try that approach next time and see Andrea Ledsome hanging out with Stormzy.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Apparently Corbyn was down with the grime massive who had quite a big influence in the way the kids voted. I would pay good money to see the Tory party try that approach next time and see Andrea Ledsome hanging out with Stormzy.

She was genuinely enthused...it was very encouraging.

BTW - anyone watching Broken ? The shocking thing about it is knowing that what the Anna Friel character undergoes in the hands of the DWP is true to life, and the lengths she goes to to scrape together money to live on are not that far-fetched - how far-fetched they actually are I am not so sure - perhaps not at all.

The country we live in in 2017 - the 5th (or is it 6th) most prosperous country in the world...shameful

 

[chrisd]

How do you counter that though? If we had a system of PR then a coalition would be almost inevitable and parties would have to factor that in before an election. Deals would have to be announced in their manifesto's and people would have a better idea of what they are voting for. FPtP does not encourage this way of working.

I don't have an answer to the problem but what I was clear about before, and am also this time, is that nobody gets what they voted for and that isn't right.

 

[ger147]

I don't have an answer to the problem but what I was clear about before, and am also this time, is that nobody gets what they voted for and that isn't right.

I'm sorry but that's simply not true.

All the electorate get to vote for is their local MP. From then on, the system is fairly simple.

The party who gets the most seats is invited by the Queen to form a government. There is nothing set down anywhere that states the party itself must have a majority on its own, merely that they have to be able to command a majority in the house.

If they can do that via a formal or informal agreement with another party or parties there's nothing wrong with that at all. They then put a Queen's speech together and it has to be passed in the HoC's.

If it gets passed then it's off to work for everyone.

 

[chrisd]

I'm sorry but that's simply not true.

All the electorate get to vote for is their local MP. From then on, the system is fairly simple.

The party who gets the most seats is invited by the Queen to form a government. There is nothing set down anywhere that states the party itself must have a majority on its own, merely that they have to be able to command a majority in the house.

If they can do that via a formal or informal agreement with another party or parties there's nothing wrong with that at all. They then put a Queen's speech together and it has to be passed in the HoC's.

If it gets passed then it's off to work for everyone.

I think, having lived through elections since the 1950's I do know all of that.

My point is that you vote for your MP for a number of reasons but it's likely it's for their policies and promises made during the run up to the vote and outlined in their manifesto. So, they don't have an overall majority, go into a partnership and, as a result, ditch most of their promises and claim " that's what you voted for" errrrr no it wasn't

 

[ger147]

I think, having lived through elections since the 1950's I do know all of that.

My point is that you vote for your MP for a number of reasons but it's likely it's for their policies and promises made during the run up to the vote and outlined in their manifesto. So, they don't have an overall majority, go into a partnership and, as a result, ditch most of their promises and claim " that's what you voted for" errrrr no it wasn't

We vote for the composition of the house. If the party with the largest number of seats don't have an overall majority then it's perfectly clear they won't necessarily be able to deliver everything laid out in their manifesto. So thst IS what we have voted for i.e. the winner not having a majority.

I don't consider manifestos to be "promises" but merely an indication of the policies they would like to implement if they can. If they don't get a majority in their own then they can't do it all, simples...

 

[chrisd]

We vote for the composition of the house. If the party with the largest number of seats don't have an overall majority then it's perfectly clear they won't necessarily be able to deliver everything laid out in their manifesto. So thst IS what we have voted for i.e. the winner not having a majority.

I don't consider manifestos to be "promises" but merely an indication of the policies they would like to implement if they can. If they don't get a majority in their own then they can't do it all, simples...

Good for you, I hope you'll be very happy with the results you end up with !

 

[ger147]

Good for you, I hope you'll be very happy with the results you end up with !

It doesn't matter whether I'm happy or not, just as it doesn't matter if you're happy or not. That's the system we have and if you don't like it, the other choice is lump it...

 

[Foxholer]

False against the manifesto they were elected on.

So, would you be condoning a party who made several promises that helped them get elected, who then left them out of the Queens speech and never carried them through but forced you to wait 5 years before you could vote them out?

That's an ever-present consequence of 'UK Democracy'! Whatever is in a Party's Manifesto is only able to be committed to if that Party has an overall majority! Any deals made in order to 'rule' trump rolleyes manifesto 'promises'! It's unreasonable, imo, to deem such deals 'broken promises'! Waiting 5 years (or perhaps less! ) to boot out the elected Party (in a coalition) that failed to implement a particular manifesto item is no different to waiting the same period because one prefers another Party to govern in the first place!

After all, we don't actually 'vote for the Party' in he first place! In UK's version of Democracy, we merely vote for a particular candidate in our electorate!

Btw. The Queen's Speech is part of the opening for each Parliamentary Session and outlines proposed legislation for that session. As such, it may not include everything in even an outright winning Party's Manifesto, simply those parts the Government proposes for that Session!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That's an ever-present consequence of 'UK Democracy'! Whatever is in a Party's Manifesto is only able to be committed to if that Party has an overall majority! Any deals made in order to 'rule' trump rolleyes manifesto 'promises'! It's unreasonable, imo, to deem such deals 'broken promises'! Waiting 5 years (or perhaps less! ) to boot out the elected Party (in a coalition) that failed to implement a particular manifesto item is no different to waiting the same period because one prefers another Party to govern in the first place!

After all, we don't actually 'vote for the Party' in he first place! In UK's version of Democracy, we merely vote for a particular candidate in our electorate!

Btw. The Queen's Speech is part of the opening for each Parliamentary Session and outlines proposed legislation for that session. As such, it may not include everything in even an outright winning Party's Manifesto, simply those parts the Government proposes for that Session!

...and usually tries to include the tricky or contentious stuff in it's first QS - when it (normally) has broad majority support in parliament and across the country. May's first QS could be a very sparse and bland beast.

 

[drdel]

Our problem is the celebritisation of politics.

Neither the PM or JC does not fit the celebrity . Without 'attractive' strong personalities the media was able to run a largely negative witch hunt on everyone. The government had some basic truths which they wrongly chose to share. Their PR was flawed and the population didn't like being told they were living beyond their means - surprised. The opposition was 'underdog' who was fully aware that there was zero chance of winning so simply promised everything in the full knowledge that they would not have to implement and no chance of being judged. This gave the media what they craved - a personality contest between the nasty PM and the nice JC. Luckily for JC his cupboard skeletons were old enough that many voters do not remember the IRA etc so it didn't matter and suddenly the media's 'village' idiot of a month ago became the new saviour with new tablets of stone and a fairy tale of being nice to everyone.

In the resulting popularity contest 'nice' promises scored heavily and, no surprise, the truth about the facts of life lost out

In addition the Brexit vote influenced the liberal elite of London who switched sides.

The entirely predictable narrow result is the consequence and, like other so-called mature democracies, of the 'two headed' fight which involves more than two choices is confusing.

You can't put the genie of the Internet and arrogant self-opinionated talking-heads of the media back in the bottle.

In future elections the system will be lucky to shake off the marginal results - look forward to more coalition governments

 

[bluewolf]

You will see my quote, It only mentioned my feeling that these petitions are a waste of time. I have not answered the question on the DUP and Conservatives as I have no idea if they will reach an agreement and what the terms would be. Ask me again after they have one if you like and I will be glad to oblige.

Ok, so what you're saying is that you are only willing to voice opinion on things/events that have already happened? Can I have your word on that? I'm betting that the forum would be a much quieter place if true...

In the spirit of Mr Dimbleby I'll persist....

What is your opinion on the proposed coalition between the Tories and the DUP? If you refuse to answer (as is your right) then I'll officially give up asking this time

 

[chrisd]

That's an ever-present consequence of 'UK Democracy'! Whatever is in a Party's Manifesto is only able to be committed to if that Party has an overall majority! Any deals made in order to 'rule' trump rolleyes manifesto 'promises'! It's unreasonable, imo, to deem such deals 'broken promises'! Waiting 5 years (or perhaps less! ) to boot out the elected Party (in a coalition) that failed to implement a particular manifesto item is no different to waiting the same period because one prefers another Party to govern in the first place!

After all, we don't actually 'vote for the Party' in he first place! In UK's version of Democracy, we merely vote for a particular candidate in our electorate!

Btw. The Queen's Speech is part of the opening for each Parliamentary Session and outlines proposed legislation for that session. As such, it may not include everything in even an outright winning Party's Manifesto, simply those parts the Government proposes for that Session!

Just a few points

A party with no overall majority can try and govern as a minority Government

Although, yes you do vote for a local MP, a percentage of the electorate vote for the party and it's policies etc without necessarily knowing who the candidate is

Waiting 5 years to change of government you dont like is entirely different than waiting 5 years to change one you voted for that didnt do what it promised that enticed your vote

I do understand how the Queen's Speech works, after all I've heard plenty!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Our problem is the celebritisation of politics.

Neither the PM or JC does not fit the celebrity . Without 'attractive' strong personalities the media was able to run a largely negative witch hunt on everyone. The government had some basic truths which they wrongly chose to share. Their PR was flawed and the population didn't like being told they were living beyond their means - surprised. The opposition was 'underdog' who was fully aware that there was zero chance of winning so simply promised everything in the full knowledge that they would not have to implement and no chance of being judged. This gave the media what they craved - a personality contest between the nasty PM and the nice JC. Luckily for JC his cupboard skeletons were old enough that many voters do not remember the IRA etc so it didn't matter and suddenly the media's 'village' idiot of a month ago became the new saviour with new tablets of stone and a fairy tale of being nice to everyone.

In the resulting popularity contest 'nice' promises scored heavily and, no surprise, the truth about the facts of life lost out

In addition the Brexit vote influenced the liberal elite of London who switched sides.

The entirely predictable narrow result is the consequence and, like other so-called mature democracies, of the 'two headed' fight which involves more than two choices is confusing.

You can't put the genie of the Internet and arrogant self-opinionated talking-heads of the media back in the bottle.

In future elections the system will be lucky to shake off the marginal results - look forward to more coalition governments

You seem to be confusing a leader who can connect and resonate with people with someone who is nice. You seem to be confusing a party who had a manifesto that actually stood for something (whether people liked it or not is a different matter, but at least there was substance to it) instead of one containing vague mostly meaningless statements, with a party that is nice. And as for the media wanting a 'nice' Corbyn then Christ on a bike, did you see the increasingly hysterical headlines from every right wing paper desperately trying to do a hatchet job on him? You think they were portraying him as 'nice'???

Please read just about any paper/web site as most of them have a very good summary of why Corbyn resonated so well and TMay was an electoral liability and their campaign was a relative disaster. And spoiler alert, there's no mention of him doing so well as he's nice or TMay being 'nasty'.

But it would actually be great of the Tories continued putting their head in the sand and put it down to Corbyn being nice as that means they will never learn. Which should see them out of power sooner rather than later.

 

[SocketRocket]

Ok, so what you're saying is that you are only willing to voice opinion on things/events that have already happened? Can I have your word on that? I'm betting that the forum would be a much quieter place if true...

In the spirit of Mr Dimbleby I'll persist....

What is your opinion on the proposed coalition between the Tories and the DUP? If you refuse to answer (as is your right) then I'll officially give up asking this time

First: I don't understand why you are asking me the question, I haven't expressed any opinion on the subject yet so why do you wish me to have one? I could ask your opinion on Cartesian Dualism but would have to accept that you may not have one even if I did. Secondly: I am not saying I only have opinions on things that have happened, I may well have an opinion on whether the England RU team will win the next World Cup but on the other hand may not be at all interested in who may win this years Bog Snortleing championships. Regarding whether the Conservatives and DUP can work out a way to work together for the good of the country, I will just wait and see what they come up with first.

Hope that helps.

 

[bluewolf]

First: I don't understand why you are asking me the question, I haven't expressed any opinion on the subject yet so why do you wish me to have one? I could ask your opinion on Cartesian Dualism but would have to accept that you may not have one even if I did. Secondly: I am not saying I only have opinions on things that have happened, I may well have an opinion on whether the England RU team will win the next World Cup but on the other hand may not be at all interested in who may win this years Bog Snortleing championships. Regarding whether the Conservatives and DUP can work out a way to work together for the good of the country, I will just wait and see what they come up with first.

Hope that helps.

You are going to extreme lengths to avoid offering your opinion. No worries. I don't remember people being too reticent about offering opinions on JC's meetings with groups with terrorist links. Probably a completely different thing though :thup: