General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%
  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%
  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%
  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%
  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%
  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%
  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%

  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
Saw Isabelle Oakeshott on Question Time Friday and I got the same impression I get of her whenever she appears in the media. And that's that she is a fundamentally stupid person with a poor grasp of reality who got far because editors who've employed here have, at one time, fancied a go. She's such a self-entitled, sneering, Prefect type but there's absolutely nothing behind there. There are other journalists, many female, who make the same points as she does but in a way that doesn't make as if she's just memorised a talking point. Easily one of the most detestable journalists regularly on TV and if she was 10 years older, had greying hair and a wart on her face she would never have a job as a prominent journalist, much less one that gets regularly featured on TV.

The archetypal fecking idiot who's been promoted well above her intellectual pay-grade because of her looks.
Same way Piers Morgan got so far.
 
I'd be interested in understanding the reasons behind the split in the UKIP vote. If it's simply proportional return to each party, then nothing to be understood. But if ex Tories/UKIPers voted Labour, it's worth understanding why. At least from a political point of view.
 
No, different secretaries of state and government departments, separate budget lines etc. Trident's under the remit of the Defence Secretary, it's why Clive Lewis resigned from the role and why Nia Griffith overruled Thornberry on it during the campaign.
Yeah I know, I just asking where you putting Trident and the pledge for more police under defence ?

Although it doesn't really matter, as I agree with you on the policing point(Actually didn't like how pro policing Corbyn was, it was politics but felt odd)
 
Come on Ubik you can get away with that one. You know what centrist defence policy of the last 17 years has been like, with Corbyn it would completely different.

On the whole, while I wouldn't say that Corbyn's manifesto in general was centrist as such, I do think the branding of it as some far-left socialist manifesto showed how far we've come in regards to economics. A lot of the industries he was planning to nationalise have been nationalised in the past, and a lot of his tax rises would be returning to levels of the past. In that respect he's a standard democratic socialist...and of course left-wing figures like Foot and Benn who are often considered far-left were government ministers back in the 70s.
 
I'd be interested in understanding the reasons behind the split in the UKIP vote. If it's simply proportional return to each party, then nothing to be understood. But if ex Tories/UKIPers voted Labour, it's worth understanding why. At least from a political point of view.

I reckon a lot of UKIP voters are people who are just perpetually unhappy with the state of politics in the country and go for an interesting option that offers them change. Corbyn had that appeal this time.
 
I reckon a lot of UKIP voters are people who are just perpetually unhappy with the state of politics in the country and go for an interesting option that offers them change. Corbyn had that appeal this time.
You're probably not far off. It would make me skeptical of any Labour lead in the polls, if this is the block with potential to swing it.
 
On the whole, while I wouldn't say that Corbyn's manifesto in general was centrist as such, I do think the branding of it as some far-left socialist manifesto showed how far we've come in regards to economics. A lot of the industries he was planning to nationalise have been nationalised in the past, and a lot of his tax rises would be returning to levels of the past. In that respect he's a standard democratic socialist...and of course left-wing figures like Foot and Benn who are often considered far-left were government ministers back in the 70s.
Labour Alternative Models Of Ownership is really interesting - http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/PDFs/9472_Alternative Models of Ownership all_v4.pdf

Also a breakdown/review of it -

. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/labour-corbyn-general-election-nationalization

.https://newsocialistblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/labours-alternative-models-of-ownership-report/
 
On the whole, while I wouldn't say that Corbyn's manifesto in general was centrist as such, I do think the branding of it as some far-left socialist manifesto showed how far we've come in regards to economics. A lot of the industries he was planning to nationalise have been nationalised in the past, and a lot of his tax rises would be returning to levels of the past. In that respect he's a standard democratic socialist...and of course left-wing figures like Foot and Benn who are often considered far-left were government ministers back in the 70s.

very true.
they key areas that got him votes were education and NHS.
 
On the whole, while I wouldn't say that Corbyn's manifesto in general was centrist as such, I do think the branding of it as some far-left socialist manifesto showed how far we've come in regards to economics. A lot of the industries he was planning to nationalise have been nationalised in the past, and a lot of his tax rises would be returning to levels of the past. In that respect he's a standard democratic socialist...and of course left-wing figures like Foot and Benn who are often considered far-left were government ministers back in the 70s.

The right wing media have been trying hard to push the status quo back to the right, so labeling anything and everything Corbyn does as extreme or Marxist is more a means to an end that anything based in reality. In fairness, both the left and right have played off this. It probably hasn't helped that a lot of wannabe Che's on our side have lapped this notion up in the belief that they're some kind of quasi-revolutionaries.
 
Decades of neoliberalism has pretty much fecked up the political kaleidoscope on both sides of the Atlantic. Nixon for example was in many respects more left wing than Obama.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if even seemingly minor things worried people enough to vote against the Conservatives. I mean smallish stuff like Rudd believing she had the right to shut down speakers without the authority to do so; May's people presuming they can check text messages of people whose workplaces she visited etc etc. That arrogant, alarming behaviour smacks of authoritarianism, and might've been viewed by voters as the sinister shape of things to come in May's Britain.
 
The right wing media have been trying hard to push the status quo back to the right, so labeling anything and everything Corbyn does as extreme or Marxist is more a means to an end that anything based in reality. In fairness, both the left and right have played off this. It probably hasn't helped that a lot of wannabe Che's on our side have lapped this notion up in the belief that they're some kind of quasi-revolutionaries.

To be fair I still think that it's fair to say that while we've become more socially liberal as a country over the years, the economic paradigm has generally shifted to the right during the Thatcher years. Centrist policy has been about as left as the country have been willing to go economically for a considerable while.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if even seemingly minor things worried people enough to vote against the Conservatives. I mean smallish stuff like Rudd believing she had the right to shut down speakers without the authority to do so; May's people presuming they can check text messages of people whose workplaces she visited etc etc. That arrogant, alarming behaviour smacks of authoritarianism, and might've been viewed by voters as the sinister shape of things to come in May's Britain.
I still think May treating her rivals as inferior was her biggest downfall (aside from her general incompetence). Backing out of the debates was calculated to appear presidential (above the process), but it just appeared arrogant and out of touch.
 
I still think May treating her rivals as inferior was her biggest downfall (aside from her general incompetence). Backing out of the debates was calculated to appear presidential (above the process), but it just appeared arrogant and out of touch.
Also, as under Cameron, there seems to have been an air of not wanting to bother campaigning (seeing as victory was assumed to be a given). An air of "just vote for business as usual, and don't ask about our policies and plans."
 
To be fair I still think that it's fair to say that while we've become more socially liberal as a country over the years, the economic paradigm has generally shifted to the right during the Thatcher years. Centrist policy has been about as left as the country have been willing to go economically for a considerable while.

Yeah, that's fair. Social and economic liberalism are very different things. But then where left and right align is in both having very strong social convictions, and absolutely no one having any real idea how the economy works.
 
Also, as under Cameron, there seems to have been an air of not wanting to bother campaigning (seeing as victory was assumed to be a given). An air of "just vote for business as usual, and don't ask about our policies and plans."
Yeah, but I think this was the least substantive of any campaign I can remember. Theresa May wanted to play the most vacuous form of personality politics imaginable. People are sick of that, I think. Corbyn may be a populist but there's a sense of policy underneath it. With May it's all slogans and soundbites. Nothing else on show.
 
THERESA MAY TO LAUNCH WIDE-RANGING INTERNET REGULATION AND SECURITY CHANGES DESPITE NOT WINNING MAJORITY

Independent said:
During the election campaign, the prime minister refused to rule out Chinese-style internet censorship as part of that regulation plan, suggesting that she might look to shut down or ban companies that didn't comply with her controversial proposals.

Almost all of Ms May's plans for stopping terror have focused on internet communications, despite there being no proof that they are responsible for recent attacks.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...downing-street-speech-manifesto-a7783186.html
 
The right wing media have been trying hard to push the status quo back to the right, so labeling anything and everything Corbyn does as extreme or Marxist is more a means to an end that anything based in reality. In fairness, both the left and right have played off this. It probably hasn't helped that a lot of wannabe Che's on our side have lapped this notion up in the belief that they're some kind of quasi-revolutionaries.

He talked to terrorists you know? An some terrorists are marxists. So ............. QED
 
In fact i can imagine her next speech:

"Ladies and gentlemen of Great Britain, you have (sort of) chosen me as the leader of the government for the next five years and thus given me a mandate to begin my negotiations for Brexit.

It is here that I intend to set out my vision and determination to get the best possible deal for Britain, but I will stress once again that no deal is better than a bad deal. I will return following these negotiations and continue to guide the nation as your strong and stable leader.

Finally, Susan Smith from Bootle, my intelligence team have asked me to inform you that Bob won't be home for dinner as he has a late meeting. We have spotted that you haven't been active on whats app for 7 hours and we didn't want you to worry"
 
Of course. 80% of voters don't read the manifesto of the party they're voting for. And that's generous. At most they crib it from the news or absorb it second hand. The right wing media (hock, spit) scored a massive own goal in over emphasising the "unrealistic" flaws in the costing of Labour's policies, because all most people took in was the fact Labour had some positive policies, and they were more or less "costed"...Whilst the Tories just had some vague horrible Tory shit they couldn't even account for.

"Enough is enough" is enough for me to believe that she will ..... erm .... not be a terrorist supporting marxist. Or something.

Muslims ....

We will fight them on the beaches ...

Dole bludging leeches and single mothers ...

Splutter in outrage .......

We aren't really the UKIP but close enough so can we have their votes please?
 
I would be worried about the number of Labour MPs who might potentially back it. Would Corbyn block it (likely) and would his New-Labour/Blairite/Tory-lite/gaggle-of-cnuts MPs fall in line (me no likely)?
 
Theresa May strikes me like the kind of person who thinks Minesweeper is a computer virus.

Teresa's plan
internet-fechada-300x179.jpg
 
The context being that Labour went into the election in poor shape because everyone thought their leader was unelectable? And that gives extra kudos to Corbyn why, exactly?

Because he pulled this off despite having the establishment against him both outside and inside Labour
 
Certainly the ones in his party will be onside from now on, so it should be enough

You'd think so. Time will tell. Obviously, it would have been better for everyone if he had won them round when it mattered most, before the election. I doubt he'll ever come up against someone as inept, aloof and dislikable as Theresa May ever again.
 
I reckon a lot of UKIP voters are people who are just perpetually unhappy with the state of politics in the country and go for an interesting option that offers them change. Corbyn had that appeal this time.
I know two ukip voters in real life, one is an ex smackhead who has never worked a day in his life, the other is the kind of guy who posts Britain first shite all over Facebook. I am also currently on holiday in Majorca, and got up to go downstairs and watch the coverage the other morning. The only other guy up that early was a Chelsea supporter who said he never ever voted because it didn't matter who got in, they're all the same but if he did it'd be ukip because none of the others know what they're doing, and that there was something actually mentally wrong with corbyn.
I think ukip supporters, on the whole, are thick arseholes.
 
The context being that Labour went into the election in poor shape because everyone thought their leader was unelectable? And that gives extra kudos to Corbyn why, exactly?

Because they were wrong and he seems to have been right.
 
No, he should find his own way to broaden his appeal. Just like every other labour Prime Minister that has ever led the country.
Lets be honest here though.

He could promise and be able to deliver free oral sex from the pornstar of your choice, £2000 a week wages for everybody and everything else people desire and it won't matter a damn while he is still fighting the papers.

The people he reached despite the leftover blairites in his own party, the cnut media and the idiots the read that media and believe it was nothing short of incredible.
 
How long before the power of the redtops and the Heil starts dropping off. I haven't read a physical paper in a decade and soon the majority of voters won't get their news that way either.