I'm quite uncomfortable with the way a lot of people on my social media (London) talk about the DUP. Most of these people have never been to Northern Ireland, knew nothing of Northern Irish politics until today and yet are acting like the Conservatives are going into coalition with a third world junta rather than the most popular democratically elected party in a part of the United Kingdom. Presumably they see the Northern Irish as slightly less human than themselves.
Because social media is 99% value-signalers who are obsessed with the gays? Sod stable government etc, as long as every single person in politics has the exact same belief system as them.....
I think you'll find the Prime Minister threw away stable government with her grubby and calculating attempt to manipulate the electorate through an unnecessary trip to the polls.
Cons will have to do a volte-face on either public services spending or Brexit. If they get Boris, he can only do the former or his credibility will be shot (can't say well I was a Remainer before I became an arch Brexiter). He can then hunker down on Brexit with people realising that he is alive to the nuances of all sides of Brexit. Something that Tezza doesn't seem to be.
Other than him? Hammond perhaps, Davis not on your nelly, Fallon lord spare us.
Now, I happen to believe that the Cons needs a Remainer as leader. So that leaves Rudd (or an unknown as yet backbencher). But will the euroloons stand for it? Will for once in their political careers they realise that they didn't win, that there needs to be compromise with the country?
Perhaps not, but one thing is for sure, as was noted above by @maaarsh, they need to be bloody careful or the bastards will destroy the Conservative Party and put Jezza into power at the next available opportunity.
May became Prime Minister without a personal electoral mandate. She went to the country in part to get that mandate, but fell short of expectations (but still significant increase in votes and comfortably most seats such as only Conservatives can form a viable Government).
Because the electorate didn't grant her a strong enough mandate, the proposal is that the Conservative party say "you didn't like her, ok we'll give you somebody else"(but you won't have a chance to give your opinion on them). That won't wash - they would have to be bloody certain that that person could win a General Election in 4 months. Because that's where it would be going.
Exactly. The idea of going through a General Election with various leaders put front and centre, then suddenly some other guy or girl who wasn't even on the table suddenly comes in straight after the election, is going to seem utterly baffling to the public.
The Tories will either have to make do with May for most of the parliament, or if they really do want to change leaders then get ready for another election imminently.
May became Prime Minister without a personal electoral mandate. She went to the country in part to get that mandate, but fell short of expectations (but still significant increase in votes and comfortably most seats such as only Conservatives can form a viable Government).
Because the electorate didn't grant her a strong enough mandate, the proposal is that the Conservative party say "you didn't like her, ok we'll give you somebody else"(but you won't have a chance to give your opinion on them). That won't wash - they would have to be bloody certain that that person could win a General Election in 4 months. Because that's where it would be going.
Exactly. The idea of going through a General Election with various leaders put front and centre, then suddenly some other guy or girl who wasn't even on the table suddenly comes in straight after the election, is going to seem utterly baffling to the public.
The Tories will either have to make do with May for most of the parliament, or if they really do want to change leaders then get ready for another election.
I agree, new leader, new mandate.
An autumn election is quite possible, a government like this is very vulnerable to a confidence vote.
Boris is disliked by large swathes of the electorate, only Labour voters would want him as PM.
Theresa May will have to step down as she has made mistakes in the past few hours. She had to be asked to apologise to the Tory MPs who have lost their seats. This came later on this afternoon. She seems to lack the human touch.
This was an election that she didn't need to hold, a vanity project based upon arrogance and bad advice.A disastrous campaign has produced a result where the Tory Party is beholden to a party who could be described as illiberal and regressive. Ruth Davidson has already criticised this alliance.
Tractional deal = cuddling up. You will be tainted either way.
Quite possibly, although nothing could conceivably be worse than being tainted with a leader who invited convicted terrorists into the workplace of their fellow-terrorists' victims, within days of the murders and maimings, nor a Shadow Chancellor who openly celebrated the 'achievements of those murderers, and neither of these seems to have caused much electoral damage.
Quit it with that ad hom stuff, it didn't work, it just makes you look silly.
It may not have worked but those are still the facts even if you choose to ignore them or place no weight on them.
One day those facts - and all the other facts about your leader and his associates - will come back and bite your leader and your party hard.
No-one thought much about how every British government cosied up to the Saudis. Now it's something which is repelling a lot of people. Rightly, IMO.
Don't be so complacent as to assume that your own leader's associations might not come to assume more importance in the public's minds as a result of events than they currently do.
That is quite apart from any argument that such associations are bad per se as a matter of simple morality and judgment, even though I am fully aware that only a very few care about the issue on this ground.
Your opinions about Corbyn are not just facts, they are highly charged and emotive. So utterly convinced were you, you were not alone in expressing them in terms that diminished and then destroyed the power of your argument.
There is much to disagree with in Corbyn's past, but you don't have to resort to the language that is usually reserved by the tabloids for child killers. And there are other aspects to Corbyn that you ignore.
There is much to disagree with in Corbyn's present - his chairmanship of STW, for instance - and the positions it has led him to adopt (for instance not supporting action to help the Yazidis who are the target of ISIS' genocide). But I place more importance on a person's moral character than others. So we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
And for the record I have praised Corbyn's ability to communicate and his successful campaign.
But stop with this 40 years ago nonsense. As you well know your leader has been associating with some pretty unpleasant people other than the IRA, right up until the present day. You may think it of no importance but facts cannot be denied.
Truthfully, I can't think of any unpleasant groups who he's been associating with since becoming leader, let alone urging them to join a potenil Government. Who did you have in mind?
STW - though I think he resigned from them when he became leader. They are an unpleasant group and I have noted on this board my objections to their stance, shared by Corbyn in relation to, for instance, the IS genocide of the Yazidis.
Paul Eisner. Raed Salah. The Holocaust denying Palestinian group he travelled with to see President Assad. Not nice people. And not 40 years ago either.
At best he is naive. Or just turns a blind eye. Or adopts a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach.
But, really, Nick: are you really happy that your leader has no qualms about associating with people who are Holocaust deniers? Does it not give you the slightest pang? Not even the slightest uncomfortable feeling?
This is the Labour party, for God's sake, of whom one of your former leaders said: "The party is a moral crusade or it is nothing."
What is moral about associating with Holocaust deniers? If even the most junior Tory MP did that the shrieks of outrage from the Left would be heard from here to the moon. Why is it OK for your leader?
For the record I did not say he was inviting them to government.
Alastair - I work in a university and also work with young people in a London-based charity. It was very clear to me that there was a rising surge of young people, not on the radar of the pollsters and not reading the tabloids, who had every intention of voting and getting their friends to vote too.
This 'dark' red 5% was always going to skew the Con45, Lab35% polling intentions.
My strategy was backing Labour in remain-leaning university towns such as Coventry NW, Leeds NW, Bristol and some in London. When I saw the reports of a large young turn-out (in Bedford - thanks Mike) I was more convinced than ever and projected Con41.5, Lab39.5, Dem8.7, with a turnout of 68-69%. This was less than 1% out on each party and provided ample betting opportunities.
I guess the lesson is to work out WHO is voting in an election rather than which way they intend to vote. The polling companies understand this to varying degrees.
Comments
Other than him? Hammond perhaps, Davis not on your nelly, Fallon lord spare us.
Now, I happen to believe that the Cons needs a Remainer as leader. So that leaves Rudd (or an unknown as yet backbencher). But will the euroloons stand for it? Will for once in their political careers they realise that they didn't win, that there needs to be compromise with the country?
Perhaps not, but one thing is for sure, as was noted above by @maaarsh, they need to be bloody careful or the bastards will destroy the Conservative Party and put Jezza into power at the next available opportunity.
Theresa May to see the Queen at 6.30 to ask permission to keep the old government rather than forming a new one.
Theresa May will have to step down as she has made mistakes in the past few hours. She had to be asked to apologise to the Tory MPs who have lost their seats. This came later on this afternoon. She seems to lack the human touch.
This was an election that she didn't need to hold, a vanity project based upon arrogance and bad advice.A disastrous campaign has produced a result where the Tory Party is beholden to a party who could be described as illiberal and regressive. Ruth Davidson has already criticised this alliance.
And for the record I have praised Corbyn's ability to communicate and his successful campaign.
Paul Eisner. Raed Salah. The Holocaust denying Palestinian group he travelled with to see President Assad. Not nice people. And not 40 years ago either.
At best he is naive. Or just turns a blind eye. Or adopts a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach.
But, really, Nick: are you really happy that your leader has no qualms about associating with people who are Holocaust deniers? Does it not give you the slightest pang? Not even the slightest uncomfortable feeling?
This is the Labour party, for God's sake, of whom one of your former leaders said: "The party is a moral crusade or it is nothing."
What is moral about associating with Holocaust deniers? If even the most junior Tory MP did that the shrieks of outrage from the Left would be heard from here to the moon. Why is it OK for your leader?
For the record I did not say he was inviting them to government.
This 'dark' red 5% was always going to skew the Con45, Lab35% polling intentions.
My strategy was backing Labour in remain-leaning university towns such as Coventry NW, Leeds NW, Bristol and some in London. When I saw the reports of a large young turn-out (in Bedford - thanks Mike) I was more convinced than ever and projected Con41.5, Lab39.5, Dem8.7, with a turnout of 68-69%. This was less than 1% out on each party and provided ample betting opportunities.
I guess the lesson is to work out WHO is voting in an election rather than which way they intend to vote. The polling companies understand this to varying degrees.