Planet Rugby Forum

The greatest political miscalculation since the brexit referendum. Tories. You get the politicians you deserve.

theo wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:From March

People are jokes

In bad news for Jeremy Corbyn, the proportion of people who think he would make a better Prime Minister than Theresa May hits its lowest level ever this week, at 13%. With 51% of Brits believing the Conservative leader to be a superior choice, May's 38 point lead is also the highest it has ever been

can't blame her for calling an election with those figures

We have no idea what kind of PM Corbyn will be. It's a very different job from being the leader of the opposition.

Don't give me that crap. We have a very good idea Corbyn would be a farking disaster. That is not the point though as we won't find out for sure until he has the gig.

slick wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Torquemada 1420 wrote:Blair and the UK media (read Murdoch) long ago moved elections into the US model of cult of the personality.

And we reverted right after Blair.

No you didn't. Maybe in the educated, privileged elite of London where the likes of you and yeeb would scrutinise policy but outside the M4/M25? That London-centric inability to see beyond one's own naval was largely the cause of the "surprise" Brexit result and "surprise" no Tory landslide result.

That's a bizarre response that has virtually no connection to what's been said. What on earth are you blathering on about? Do you think the Prime Ministers we've had since Blair have been impressive and voted in on personality? It's gone Brown - Cameron - May. Of those you could say Cameron was vaguely media-friendly, but he was no Blair.

Banging on about the London bubble is very, very strange. That goes for you, too, slick: we literally just had a vote on the suitability of the Tories to govern and they did not come out of it smelling of roses.

But are governing with, literally, a fairly decent majority, roses or not. Which suggests to me that people just want them to get on with it and don't want Corbyn near it.

I'm not going to go round in circles but I didn't expect you to be one of these people banging on about the Torys not having a mandate when they clearly won an election.

Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we fucked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

JM2K6 wrote: Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we fucked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

Duff Paddy wrote:The greatest political miscalculation since the brexit referendum. Tories. You get the politicians you deserve.

The miscalculation wasn't holding an election; that was entirely sensible, given the polling numbers at the time, and the desire not to have an election at the exact same time as we are leaving the EU.

The miscalculation was running the worst campaign since Lord Cardigan thought it would be a good idea to ask the Light Brigade to engage the russians at Balaclava.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-5

British voters refuse to give the Conservatives a mandate

Another election may follow later this year

tum te tum

JM2K6 wrote:http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-5

British voters refuse to give the Conservatives a mandate

Another election may follow later this year

tum te tum

That was written the day after the election.

The Tories will work with what they have. All of the other parties added together (less the NI parties) don't have enough MP's to oust them or vote them down. Assuming the DUP play ball (and SF don't turn up) then the Tories have a workable majority and will crack on.

theo wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-5

British voters refuse to give the Conservatives a mandate

Another election may follow later this year

tum te tum

That was written the day after the election.

The Tories will work with what they have. All of the other parties added together (less the NI parties) don't have enough MP's to oust them or vote them down. Assuming the DUP play ball (and SF don't turn up) then the Tories have a workable majority and will crack on.

So? The votes tally didn't suddenly change.

theo wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-5

British voters refuse to give the Conservatives a mandate

Another election may follow later this year

tum te tum

That was written the day after the election.

The Tories will work with what they have. All of the other parties added together (less the NI parties) don't have enough MP's to oust them or vote them down. Assuming the DUP play ball (and SF don't turn up) then the Tories have a workable majority and will crack on.

Last full parliament we average 4 bye elections a year. May cannot still be PM by conference. They have to get rid of her.

JM2K6 wrote:

theo wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-5

British voters refuse to give the Conservatives a mandate

Another election may follow later this year

tum te tum

That was written the day after the election.

The Tories will work with what they have. All of the other parties added together (less the NI parties) don't have enough MP's to oust them or vote them down. Assuming the DUP play ball (and SF don't turn up) then the Tories have a workable majority and will crack on.

So? The votes tally didn't suddenly change.

But the determination of the Tories to crack on with Government with the DUP was not set out.

Anonymous. wrote:From March

People are jokes

In bad news for Jeremy Corbyn, the proportion of people who think he would make a better Prime Minister than Theresa May hits its lowest level ever this week, at 13%. With 51% of Brits believing the Conservative leader to be a superior choice, May's 38 point lead is also the highest it has ever been

can't blame her for calling an election with those figures

They were definitely right to call one. 25 points ahead in one poll about 7 weeks before the election. The whole thing collapsed when the campaign started. Corbyn - for all his faults - is clearly an excellent campaigner, whilst May has the outward personality of a robot, and a manifesto that reflected it.

For me, the four reasons why Labour gained so much were:

- Corbyn's campaigning
- Labour's free-stuff-for-all manifesto
- May's lack of campaigning
- the Tory's terrible "dementia tax" manifesto

With another election, the bottom 3 factors can all be countered, simply with a new non-robotic leader, new manifesto (with figures this time ), and a campaign that targets Labour's obvious economic lunacy, which was barely discussed at all by May during the last few weeks.

However, I expect that Corbyn will win anyway, because the Tories will continue to shoot themsleves in the foot over Brexit/other domestic issues, and Corbyn will keep promising more and more stuff to everyone.

That doesn't change anything about the lack of a mandate, and the fact that the Tories might have scrabbled together a coalition with a bunch of absolutely lunatics doesn't make their position any less tenuous.

JM2K6 wrote:That doesn't change anything about the lack of a mandate, and the fact that the Tories might have scrabbled together a coalition with a bunch of absolutely lunatics doesn't make their position any less tenuous.

I'm not suggestion they are not in a tenuous position but I cannot see them putting another GE to the public this year.

Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we f**ked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

It's my view as well.

However, you point was this

we literally just had a vote on the suitability of the Tories to govern

We did, and they literally won 56 more seats than Labour and had a bigger vote share which says that the country thought they are suitable to govern

slick wrote:

Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we f**ked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

It's my view as well.

However, you point was this

we literally just had a vote on the suitability of the Tories to govern

We did, and they literally won 56 more seats than Labour and had a bigger vote share which says that the country thought they are suitable to govern

They might have won more seats than Labour but they didn't persuade enough of the population that they were fit to govern to get a majority. It doesn't show "the country thought they are suitable to govern" - that's nonsense. It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

JM2K6 wrote: Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

It's called a coalition. Not new in democracy or necessarily a bad thing either.

Sandstorm wrote:

JM2K6 wrote: Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

It's called a coalition. Not new in democracy or necessarily a bad thing either.

I'm well aware what it's called, what it represents, and what it means in the context of this discussion. Not least because I used it earlier in the thread.

JM2K6 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

JM2K6 wrote: Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

It's called a coalition. Not new in democracy or necessarily a bad thing either.

I'm well aware what it's called, what it represents, and what it means in the context of this discussion. Not least because I used it earlier in the thread.

Well alright then

JM2K6 wrote:It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

That's a bit misleading - more people, and a greater % of both voters and the electorate, supported them than before and indeed than had since 1983.

What was highly unusual was for the primary opposition and the governing party to both do so well in the same election.

Sandstorm wrote:

JM2K6 wrote: Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

It's called a coalition. Not new in democracy or necessarily a bad thing either.

A coalition involves the other party being in government - it would mean DUP MPs as ministers. I don't think there's any indication of that happening, is there?

JM2K6 wrote:

slick wrote:

Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we f**ked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

It's my view as well.

However, you point was this

we literally just had a vote on the suitability of the Tories to govern

We did, and they literally won 56 more seats than Labour and had a bigger vote share which says that the country thought they are suitable to govern

They might have won more seats than Labour but they didn't persuade enough of the population that they were fit to govern to get a majority. It doesn't show "the country thought they are suitable to govern" - that's nonsense. It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

The Conservative vote share increased from 2015. More people thought they were "suitable to govern".

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

That's a bit misleading - more people, and a greater % of both voters and the electorate, supported them than before and indeed than had since 1983.

What was highly unusual was for the primary opposition and the governing party to both do so well in the same election.

Because alongside a larger population, the smaller parties were effectively absorbed back into the major ones.

You're right in that I should have said "a smaller proportion than before".

JM2K6 wrote:

slick wrote:

Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we f**ked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

It's my view as well.

However, you point was this

we literally just had a vote on the suitability of the Tories to govern

We did, and they literally won 56 more seats than Labour and had a bigger vote share which says that the country thought they are suitable to govern

They might have won more seats than Labour but they didn't persuade enough of the population that they were fit to govern to get a majority. It doesn't show "the country thought they are suitable to govern" - that's nonsense. It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

How many countries globally are governed by coalitions ? Are you calling all of them unmandated now?

Merkel rules with a coalition. Mandate or not ?

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

That's a bit misleading - more people, and a greater % of both voters and the electorate, supported them than before and indeed than had since 1983.

What was highly unusual was for the primary opposition and the governing party to both do so well in the same election.

It's also misleading to say that not enough people voted for them to form a government when in fact governments have been formed on fewer votes in total and on percentage terms. The correct formulation is that not enough people in enough places voted for them to form a government.

bimboman wrote: Are you calling all of them unmandated now?

If Labour had the seats Tories do and vice versa, Corbyn would just declare a govt and get on with ruling. May should do the same, regardless of parliamentry rules, etc.

It's clearly what more than half the people with smart phones in this country want this week.

bimboman wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

slick wrote:

Mate, they were in a position of strength against an opponent busy shooting itself in the foot on every occasion, called a general election to hammer it home and have ended up having to go into coalition just to remain in power. That's not a mandate, that's "holy jesus we f**ked this up big time".

I mean, that's pretty much the consensus view on this across the political divide.

It's my view as well.

However, you point was this

we literally just had a vote on the suitability of the Tories to govern

We did, and they literally won 56 more seats than Labour and had a bigger vote share which says that the country thought they are suitable to govern

They might have won more seats than Labour but they didn't persuade enough of the population that they were fit to govern to get a majority. It doesn't show "the country thought they are suitable to govern" - that's nonsense. It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

Literally "you cannot govern without help from another party" stuff

How many countries globally are governed by coalitions ? Are you calling all of them unmandated now?

Merkel rules with a coalition. Mandate or not ?

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

JM2K6 wrote:

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

That's a bit misleading - more people, and a greater % of both voters and the electorate, supported them than before and indeed than had since 1983.

What was highly unusual was for the primary opposition and the governing party to both do so well in the same election.

Because alongside a larger population, the smaller parties were effectively absorbed back into the major ones.

You're right in that I should have said "a smaller proportion than before".

Proportionally they got more support, too. In 2016 the Tories got 36.82% of votes cast; in 2017 that rose to 42.4%. Taking into account people who did not vote or spoilt their ballots, in 2015 the Tories got 24.45% of the electorate; in 2017, 29.13%.

It's our electoral system that means more support translated into fewer seats.

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

That's a bit misleading - more people, and a greater % of both voters and the electorate, supported them than before and indeed than had since 1983.

What was highly unusual was for the primary opposition and the governing party to both do so well in the same election.

Because alongside a larger population, the smaller parties were effectively absorbed back into the major ones.

You're right in that I should have said "a smaller proportion than before".

Proportionally they got more support, too. In 2016 the Tories got 36.82% of votes cast; in 2017 that rose to 42.4%. Taking into account people who did not vote or spoilt their ballots, in 2015 the Tories got 24.45% of the electorate; in 2017, 29.13%.

It's our electoral system that means more support translated into fewer seats.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Apologies, I did actually think it was a smaller proportion than before.

But yes, as you and Santa put it, they failed to win the seats required to earn a majority government.

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

bimboman wrote:

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

You should definitely go argue with the Economist about this.

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Mahoney wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:It showed that more people thought they were suitable than Labour, but vastly fewer than before and not enough to form an effective government on their own.

That's a bit misleading - more people, and a greater % of both voters and the electorate, supported them than before and indeed than had since 1983.

What was highly unusual was for the primary opposition and the governing party to both do so well in the same election.

Because alongside a larger population, the smaller parties were effectively absorbed back into the major ones.

You're right in that I should have said "a smaller proportion than before".

Proportionally they got more support, too. In 2016 the Tories got 36.82% of votes cast; in 2017 that rose to 42.4%. Taking into account people who did not vote or spoilt their ballots, in 2015 the Tories got 24.45% of the electorate; in 2017, 29.13%.

It's our electoral system that means more support translated into fewer seats.

And when they called the election they expected their share of the vote to be so high it would be one of their best results in modern times.

Sandstorm wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:So why do so many political talking heads think there'll be another one before the end of the year, theo?

If there is, it'll be fcuking stupid! 3 different PMs in 18 months? Where the fudge are we? Burkina Faso?

We don't vote in Prime Ministers in general elections. We vote for political parties. And the trust in the Tories to actually govern, particularly with May in charge, is near-zero.

Really? Well anyone who thinks Corbin can do a better job should get off Twitter and engage their brains.

Corbin Bernsen would probably be a better candidate.

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

You should definitely go argue with the Economist about this.

The whole magazine or just the journo who wrote that click bait ?

Anonymous. wrote: And when they called the election they expected their share of the vote to be so high it would be one of their best results in modern times.

It would have been if the Tories understood electioneering in 2017. They ballsed up a sure-fire win by not talking shit in the media and posting bollocks on Twitter. It's how you engage with people these days apparently.

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

You should definitely go argue with the Economist about this.

From the economist in 2010

For now, however, neither Britain nor Mr Cameron has much choice. This is not the mandate he had hoped for: the Tories were once expected to stroll to victory and a comfortable majority. But it is the mandate he has got.

http://www.economist.com/node/16079734

So who's going to call this GE before the year end, and why?

bimboman wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

You should definitely go argue with the Economist about this.

The whole magazine or just the journo who wrote that click bait ?

"click bait" you're a few minutes away from crying fake news, aren't you?

May called this election because she felt there was too much opposition to her policies and plans from within her party and without; she also saw an opportunity to crush Labour. She wanted a mandate. But what happened was she lost what majority she had, has been forced into cutting a deal with the DUP, and any thoughts of a mandate are out the window.

Santa wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

You should definitely go argue with the Economist about this.

From the economist in 2010

For now, however, neither Britain nor Mr Cameron has much choice. This is not the mandate he had hoped for: the Tories were once expected to stroll to victory and a comfortable majority. But it is the mandate he has got.

http://www.economist.com/node/16079734

Yes, we've had this argument before. The literal definition of "mandate" vs how it's used in terms of being unopposed and sweeping authority. The latter is the more common usage these days - blame the Yanks - and is certainly how it's being used in this discussion.

No-one is claiming she doesn't have the legal right to govern by going into coalition with the DUP. But let's not pretend that's what her "seeking a mandate" was referring to when she called the election.

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

bimboman wrote:

Yes, let's reference other countries with different democratic systems and political terrain, that'll definitely clear things up.

Well it might clear up your understandings of mandates to govern.

You should definitely go argue with the Economist about this.

The whole magazine or just the journo who wrote that click bait ?

"click bait" you're a few minutes away from crying fake news, aren't you?

May called this election because she felt there was too much opposition to her policies and plans from within her party and without; she also saw an opportunity to crush Labour. She wanted a mandate. But what happened was she lost what majority she had, has been forced into cutting a deal with the DUP, and any thoughts of a mandate are out the window.

Mandate may be a slightly ambiguous term in this context.

click bait" you're a few minutes away from crying fake news, aren't you?

May called this election because she felt there was too much opposition to her policies and plans from within her party and without; she also saw an opportunity to crush Labour. She wanted a mandate. But what happened was she lost what majority she had, has been forced into cutting a deal with the DUP, and any thoughts of a mandate are out the window.

Well except for her mandate and the Governemnt she's formed. I'm sure they're no thoughts at all. There's little doubt that it wasn't the result wanted and she ran a terrible campaign, however the argument you're trying to make regarding "mandate" or coalitions is nonsensical unless you've swallowed the Momentum pill whole. I'm sure you're not that stupid.

Edit : just seen your post to Santa, would you give it more legitimacy as a government if she'd said it would be a close run thing and just wanted to win by a little bit ?