An informal election thread

Well, I'm stuffed; my no doubt sitting MP turns out to be a rabid brexiteer with no understanding of encryption theory and a desire to move us to a Stasi-style surveillance state. No way can I vote for that idiot Corbyn, no matter how good he's been on the campaign trail and all his promises: I don't think he's got a cat in hell's chance of delivering.

I'd love at this point to vote MRLP or some other crazy, just to help them keep their deposit, but as I always vote, won't spoil my paper, and in the absence of None Of The Above, I'm stuck with green or yellow.

Damn.

Well thats it Neil,as you say Corbyn is unlikely to deliver and is promising all sorts of fairy tales.
As are the other party candidates .

They just want to get into power or stay in power.

I'm sure many have good intentions,once thier nests are feathered.

You mentioned brexit did'nt you! Naughty naughty.

We're forked

That's all.

Limes or lemons ??

Oranges??

Well I've voted, not for my usual due to one the of reasons in the OP. One bigger problem however is that I appear to voted for a politician.

I think Corbyn is alright. Some of his policies might not seem do-able and we will surely have to pay for those that do get implemented but I'd much rather pay more for a health service that worked than see the Tories run it into the ground so that they could fool us all that it needed privatising. And happy do do away with Trident (even though it will never happen and Labour have never said they would) as it's an absolute waste of money.

I thought Theresa May would run away with things at the start of the campaign but that's not been the case. in fact she shoots herself in the foot every day while Labour gain more and more support.

The media have been in overdrive today in an attempt to portray Corbyn in a bad light but I think it will backfire on them.

Will not vote for any of the liars for hire on offer.

The SNP can't even be honest on their election leaflet ffs... latest one shows graph of the last local council election results (where the candidates and results were totally different to last general election) in an underhand attempt to split the lib dem vote due to them running a very close 2nd to the SNP at last general election.

Whatever happens, at least it'll be over soon thank god.

I get the sense I'm not voting for the best of the best, but for the least worst of the worst.

Agree with all of this.

It's as if the Conservatives have been taking backhanders to "lose".
If the younger generation are backing Corbyn and that's the way they want to go then they have a reasonable case as they'll be around a lot longer than the likes of me and my contemporaries!

That epitaph about stables and weetabix will come to haunt the May campaign.

I'm struggling to see how May made it to be an MP. She's been there for years yet buckles under the the slightest pressure.

I can't vote for May, and whilst I like Corbyn for the way he seems principled, I disagree with his policies. Therefore I decided to go lib dem. However, their representative lives 2 hours away from my constituency, so I don't see how he can represent us. Meh.

Can we have a poll?

Labour have my vote.

My local Labour MP (a relatively young chap) has a real chance of unseating the incumbent Tory even though the Lib Dems would have you believe otherwise (everything they put out just tells you how they are the only party who can oust the stories, even though the numbers don't add up).

I was sceptical of Corbyn at first but he's really impressed me. In the face of the smear campaign to end all smears campaigns he has stuck to his principles and refused to engage in an exchange of personal attacks.

I don't believe he could deliver everything his manifesto promises, but I do believe that he would give it his all to deliver as much of it as possible. In my view he's trustworthy, May isn't.

Anything other than a Tory majority is extremely unlikely. But my hope is that Theresa gets a bloody nose and Corbyn gets enough of the popular vote to continue as Labour's leader. If he can then get some of the big hitting Labour MPs back into the fray (Benn, Cooper, etc) in 5 years' time they'll have a real chance of winning.

I posted this somewhere else. I'm not looking for a debate, so sorry about that, but as someone who is at the coalface when it concerns 'small business', this is how I see it. My only argument is that Labour (or more specifically Corbyn Labour) cannot be the choice we make for moving the country forward:


As an accountant, I deal with a large number of small businesses. These are the people that prop up the country in terms of jobs, taxes and pensions. They are not earning a lot of money. Some of them earn less than their employees and have the stress of makings ends meet every day.

Unfortunately for us as a nation, we have to compete with Eastern Europe and other low wage economies. The only way we survive/compete is on zero hour contracts, minimum wage and low rates of corporation tax/dividends. Labour will take these away. Once that happens unemployment will rise, tax take will fall, and the rest will be history

A sensible move for a potential government of any description might be to look at the zero-hour contract and make it more user-friendly for those who are hired-and-fired at a moment's notice.
Sure, folk such as students often like to work this way which is fine for them, but then they are actually doing "something else" often involving massive loans, rather than relying on an intermittent income to feed their family on.

Jonny, the Labour manifesto specifically states that "large corporations" will pay "a little more" and that small business will be protected.

It's on page 9 if you want to confirm this yourself.

As someone who runs a small business I have to agree with Jonny, I accept your point ali_hire as I have looked through both manifestos but have to say that the prospects for a prosperous Britain don't look good to me if we get a Labour government - far too many very large holes in their "fully costed" manifesto.

On a personal level there is a proposal within the Labour manifesto which could mean my business being unable to survive - essentially they are promising to make an existing competitor free (FE colleges) for people to use. I can compete very effectively against them currently through much better service and outputs but if there is no charge for them I can't see how I would get enough custom to be viable. I wrote to the incumbent labour MP for my constituency to question this and when he eventually replied (it took 3 weeks) his conclusion of "hope this helps" was completely wrong as he completely missed the point I was asking. I suspect he sees me as one of the few despite only earning a fraction of what he gets. Guess who I'm not voting for!

Edinburgh- Agreed, but small businesses rely on them to stay afloat rather than use them as the media portray.

Ali- I'm afraid it's clear to me that from their manifesto that they don't have a clue about what small businesses do for the country.

Although that could be directed at any political party.

Can you elaborate? I'm not looking for an argument, but I also run a small business and I feel like I've missed something.

Not that it would necessarily sway my vote (too late anyway). But when I vote, I vote for what I think is best overall and not just what affects me directly.

(That's not a dig at anyone or a suggestion that anyone on here does).

I would vote labour but Keith Vaz is our MP and I can't vote for a corrupt individual with no integrity and a set of moral values I cannot identify with. If I vote Tory then I am legitimising the woman who lied about Making cuts that affect our national security while claiming we are safer as a result. I know my local independent MP and have worked with her in the past. She is getting my vote this time.

Ali-

Corporation tax and the taxation of owners:

Business owners understand what's best to grow their business. Every day I hear the phrase 'I've made more profit and so I'm looking to employ someone else'. They don't generally want to stand still.

We are an example of that, making the conscious decision to employ someone else with the lower corporation tax rates. Why will that work? More staff equals more sales and less workload, so they are happier, more efficient and better paid. Everyone wins.

The same applies with manufacturers, ploughing tax savings into new machinery (which they need to compete with other countries). Those machines were made by someone etc etc...

The lower rates of tax paid personally by business owners is often ploughed into investment just as corporation tax is.

Minimum wage/zero hours wages

The £10 ph wage is a massive increase. We simply won't be able to compete with Eastern European countries. One of my clients employs 30 staff on close to minimum wage. They already struggle to win new contracts with Romania. The increase in staff wages would mean the company would have to shut down. There would be no way out.

Care home costs would rise more than 15% on the introduction of the £10 minimum wage. Other labour intensive businesses would see the same issues. The new minimum wage wouldn't go very far in our world of huge inflation.

Another client (haulage) doesn't know one week to the next how many contracts they will be given (competition with Easter European hauliers). They already only take wages when they can, but of course the staff are paid every week. Quite a few others are on zero hours, as the business has to take work when it can get it. Again, under labour (and without zero hours) the business will shut down.

There are MANY businesses like this across Britain.

Of course many businesses are doing very well and don't pay/play fairly. The problem is that a business owner can simply pay themselves less if they don't need all of their wages/dividends. If Labour brought back the 50% tax rate, they will not get the tax take they are expecting because people will take less. It's happened before and it will happen again.

There's a fine line with what is best for business and the complete steamrollering that Labour would bring in would be ruinous (IMO...)

I could go on but I won't. It's very frustrating.

All fair points. Mine's a service based industry and no one who works for us earns anywhere near minimum wage, so I guess I'm sheltered from a lot of this.

Like I said earlier, I know Labour can't possibly win, but my hope is that this is a slap in the face for regular politics and a show that a large section of society aren't prepared to put up with the status quo of no investment and never ending spending cuts.

It's been a funny old year and no mistake! This time in 2016, we still hadn't had the referendum - seems like a very distant memory to me, so much political water under the bridge.
I've frequently said (on here and elsewhere) that I am utterly disillusioned with politics - I'm SO tired of the whole left/right bollocks - it belongs in history and should be replaced by something fit for the modern era. And, it is shameful that in our democracy, None of the Above is not an option on every ballot paper.
I voted Labour through conviction for much of my youth, then had no vote for 20 years while I lived in France (my own choice/fault), which covered the Blair era. I believed in Blair and (unfashionable as it may be to say it), he and his government in the early days brought a feeling of pride in being British that I'd never felt before. Let's just say that it didn't end so well - war crimes and megalomania so often go hand-in-hand...
However, 2 things have been largely forgotten about the end of Labour's last term in office: 1. Gordon Brown was actually a pretty good Chancellor (not so good in the Big Chair), who did a lot for lower income families and 2. Labour didn't cause the crash in 2007/8; they could have handled the aftermath better, but that is an accusation that can be levelled at every government in power at the time - worldwide.
Back to this election...
I have never thought Jeremy Corbyn was electable to the office of Prime Minister - nice, genuine bloke, very popular with grass-roots members, some laudable - if unlikely policy ideas, but just cannon fodder to the crushing machine of the media. He'll just end up a footnote, a meme after the catastrophic election results. And I really don't like McDonnell or quite a few of the Corbyn accolytes. I do, however like Diane Abbott, who is an extraordinary woman, despite what a lot of ill-informed or, frankly racist, people will have you believe. I think she is currently clearly very unwell, but only time will tell.
As for the Tories; I have maintained for many years that Theresa May is the most dangerous person in UK politics; she used fear in her time as Home Secretary to build an impressive powerbase. Yet, look at those involved in implementing the counter-terror policies she trumpeted. Pro-May? Nope. Since the most opportunistic coup in recent Tory history, May has shown herself to be utterly devoid of character, principle, policy, resolve or humanity.
I was going to vote Green (I'm disillusioned, but I understand as the legacy of the fight for universal suffrage that as NOTA is unavailable, not voting is a poor choice), but as the campaign has gone on, I've slowly been persuaded that in my constituency, there is the possibility of the Labour candidate regaining the seat from the Conservatives. I know we've been beaten and bludgeoned into believing that austerity is the one true faith, but actually, it isn't.
I'm a small business owner (have been since 1998), and today (perhaps ironically, Jonny!) we received our Certificate of Incorporation for our fledgling limited company.
Nonetheless, this time, maybe for the last time, I'm voting Labour.

I don't think for a moment that Corbyn will win, though...

It's not easy, but don't you just vote for who you want to win (candidate, party or whatever)

The irony is strong Jim! But good luck to you, and if Labour do get in, I will send you a business survival email.

There is one other inexplicable faux-pas attributable to the present Tory leader - her inability to extend an amnesty to foreign nationals already in this country. Not only is this bordering on inhumane but also sets a negative precedent to the other 20-odd countries with whom Britain will be dealing during the withdrawal process.

In spite of the interminable flak that's been dredged up to fling at Corbyn he gives me the impression of being the one who will best discuss terms with the heads of EU countries. At least they'll believe what he says.

Once again, we can look to the business world to tell us who makes a good negotiator/deal maker. Nice people always fail. Absolute ***** always win. Do you still want Corbyn doing the deal for us?

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

Do you consider yourself a failure or an absolute *****?

Edited to add;

I get the sentiment, that you sometimes need to have a bit of a killer instinct when negotiating in the business world, but even if Corbyn lacks that, he wouldn't be sitting in a room on his own with 27 other diplomats working out these deals.

I'm pretty sure Keri Stamer (QC) will have faced some tough opposition in his time.

Jesus! Exit poll puts Tories short of a majority.

Not unexpected.

I could see, in spite of their protestations, SNP and Labour forming a government...

Hurry up Sunderland or Newcastle - we need your numbers to help validate this exit poll.

If the numbers are right, they'd have less seats than the Tories

Yes you're right, I'd only half-glanced at the screen and seen the larger two parties

If those exit polls are anywhere near accurate - and it does seem superstrange - May is totally toast. Love to be in CCHQ right now, how long will it be before a new Downfall meme.

Exit polls were wrong for both Brexit, and the last GE. Hold your horses, it's only to give the beeb something to talk about for the next few hours before results start rolling in!

Maybe but still Smith Square is a dangerous place to be right now - all those donors have paid good money to see their wishes validated.

There was no exit poll for Brexit.

For the last couple of decades the exit polls have been fairly accurate. Although in 2015 they underestimated the seats for the Tories (had them under the 326 threshold and they finished with a small majority).

The Tories are going to end up in power, whether with a minority or with the help of a smaller party, but Theresa May has played a silly, career threatening move here and will be under massive pressure from now on.

Since 1987 Portsmouth South has been either Lib Dem or Tory, Labour won the seat this time with 21% swing with a ~10% increase in turn out.

It's going to be a long day of politics today...

It's going to be a big mess the coming years. Too easy to stall each other.

I've always thought politics should introduce votes and anti-votes, where you say which party you want to win and which party you want to lose. It would cause the big extreme parties to cancel each other out, making place for smaller balanced parties that don't play on emotions but on actual politics.

Looks like a big increase in younger voters have moved the balance towards Labour and we have no overall winner really. Surprised and a little pleased the SNP have seen some reaction to another possible independence vote. Any bets on another election by the Autumn?

Oh no! Its going to get very messy and i now have grave concerns for the Brexit process!
hope the pound starts fighting some day soon

It's a story of changing times I guess. The UK (politics) has never been known to be very open towards thinking about joining a more global vision. That's until now the people are starting to point their leaders in that direction. But as said: changing times, hard to get a real majority vote and these are just hard times with emotions and rationalities being cast around and countering each other.

Typical for politicians though to hold on to the last bending straws and without any further plans saying things like 'no plans to go anywhere', where surely, everything is very much for everybody to decide upon. Now will they wisen up and seek to find a few good transition compromises, where they might show they respond to the vote rather than go all Belgian and try to find partners to stubbornly be able to stick to their old rusty guns?

Ali- Yes you're right, but I'd still be a lot happier with the ***** fighting for it.

Either way, once again we're showing we're a very divided nation that just isn't working

Tories will deal with the DUP to get over the line, May will stay to see out Brexit and then they'll replace her.

Very bitter sweet IMO.

Glad to see Ms Krankie didn't get Scoxit 2 mandate but took a kicking instead.

A tad childish words, but a second referendum wasn't really on the cards. I certainly don't agree with all that SNP have to offer, but I'm really surprised that more Tories have made it in Scotland after what they've done.

Maybe childish but then I find her patronising beyond belief and she was absolutely angling for a second referendum and yet more uncertainty so I'm glad the electorate have put her back in her box. It's a mark of how badly she misjudged the mood that the Tories did well.

Tories accuse Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathiser, but see nothing of forming a government with the defacto political wing of the UVF.

For the Doctor Who fans: everytime I see a current front-line Tory politician, the Slitheens in their skin suits comes to mind ...

Bloody hell i keep looking for the'like button' on here

As a white settler, a part time one at that you don't really understand how & I know it might sound soft to some, Scotland has been dictated to by Westminster for a long time & told what to do, not an English thing mind, a political thing. We tend to be over passionate about our country. SNP is the only thing we have for our voice in Westminster, rightly or wrongly. I'm afraid Scotland's time passed decades ago, Thatcher & the Tories put paid to that. Sure we have our nutters here who live in the past & spout tartan & history, but Scotland like England is fragmented & divided at the moment & one size does not fit all.

Bottom line for me is how sad things have become. The media spreading propaganda, the scare mongering that has gone on in the past. I could go on, but I've already broken the rule I would steer clear of these discussions.

Impossible to miss their tactics I am afraid

Obviously, but the seed was planted for some never the less.

I think you do me an injustice by saying I don't understand - I've been there for 13 years (1/4 of my life) and I've been exposed to a very wide range of opinions (in and from many parts of Scotland - including a year in an NHS hospital in Glasgow). And sometimes it takes an outsider to fully appreciate the views in a more objective manner than someone who has just grown up surrounded by it.

What I do experience is what a mess Sturgeon and Co have made of education n the short time they've been in charge. My wife lives it every day and, again, has a far wider range of experience than many of the local teachers. And, whilst the SNP have been messing it up, they've been messing up my son's and many others' life chances. Remember, I've had kids in Scottish schools for 13 years. My wife has also been invited to speak to the Scottish government about education.

I've also spent quite some time debating independence issues directly with an SNP MSP.

So I might be a "part-time white settler" but I prefer not to be patronised by anybody.

Aye passions high & all that. I make no apologies for my comments, as I've said we Scots tend to be more passionate about our country. Certainly no patronising from my view point. I don't really have to explain anything about my family & how my wife has written a white paper about the Scottish care system, but points don't make prizes. In all fairness I usually just keep an eye on these types of discussions. I felt your choice of at best patronising made up words did not fit well with me. Next to my family & what we have to do & you can well understand this in your circumstances, Scotland has a place in my heart.

There you have it. Politically what's going to happen to the UK who knows.

My, but we live in interesting times!

About 6am after watching the news all I could see in my mind was an old Spike Milligan Q8 sketch but with the Teresa May & her team shuffling off stage muttering;
What are we going to do now?
What are we going to do now?

I've been listening to BBC World Service a bit today and a couple of things stay in my head.

1/ "The guys in Brussels didn't see this one coming. They've been commenting for weeks and they really think they know UK politics. Well we sure proved they were wrong"

Well they were just following your initial forecasts a couple of weeks ago and saying the same thing. And surely half the UK (politicians) have just proven that they sure as hell don't know anything about politics / the people themselves.

2/ Labour MP "Well it's really thanks to Theresa May. People have grown to dislike her as a person and this vote has mainly been about specific people rather than parties."

Well sure, so what you're saying is if it weren't for May it'd have been about the programme and judging from your comment you would then have expected to lose? Great. You really believe in your party...

3/ All kinds of politicians and media trying to explain what happened.

Well it's simples isn't it. Lots of stuff happened, lots of emotions flew around the past weeks so it's reason and emotion, fear and hope,... which made it messy times to be in and surely it affected the elections. It was unpredictable, and if something is unpredictable it's often that people vote for extremes and will just about cancel each other out. But in terms of politics, that means the opposite of balance as you now have a big fight on your hands. Or hey, maybe those 2 big parties should realise that really they have a big, crucial part of their agenda in common. Wouldn't it be a great example for Europe if they actually went through Brexit together, and make the best of it? I know, they're opposites, but so are the people that voted for them.

4/ Theresa May saying immediately that she has no intention to go away.

Take that to the negotiating tables. You've got about 50% of the people against you. Good start. Why not have open conversations?

5/ All the talk about Brexit and the shifting votes.

Been listening for hours of talks about this. Again, it's really simple. There's Brexit, yes? So what people do not want is stay in a big unstable mess. They want to move forward. So YES surely even the ones that voted against Brexit will mostly say 'well now that vote is over, will you just get on with it', and then they'll think about 'hard Brexit will be faster and clearer to everyone, then we can get to a stable situation faster and we can start growing again' or 'I think a soft Brexit with full negotiations offer us a better starting position for future dealings with Europe'. So again, it's 50-50 really and you end up in the place you're in. It's not about 'shifting', it's about 'thinking about the future'.

6/ 'The youth'

Well if you're a smart politician and you're in it for the long term, you should have thought about them a bit earlier. You don't just run the risk that they start voting all of a sudden, it's also the fact that in a good 4-8-12 years time the oldies will have passed away and those youngsters are ALL your voters. Clearly, the path is clear now. If May is going to stick to her rusty guns (even if they might be the right ones at this time) we're in a changing situation, 'the youth' heard about how they actually almost swung politics around and they'll yell even harder next time.

Really, a 'vote' is not about politics. It's about the people. The unfortunate bit is the people then are out again and the politicians will start their dealings, trying to find creative solutions to what they actually want. And ignore the people.

But really - Belgium is 10 times worse. So hey, cheer up.

Aye Neil we certainly do. I make no claims of being an academic or even something close, I say this in terms of the modern world that we live in, knowledge is a good thing, but there are times when I just wonder, but there are times when the achilles heel is cut leaves a trace of blood.

Sadly I think you may be right Klaas. But you have 10 times as many beers, eh?

Hmm... don't know that. We have around 2.000 different beers here, but you guys in England have been catching up the last couple of years.

I know... let's just say our quality is 10 times better.

Nothing to do with anything Klaas, but I spent some time in Holland working as a welder. At the weekends some of us paid a visit to your welcoming country & among other things we sampled the beers Much brawness

Well if you're over next I believe some kind of cross-monetary-union amicabilities are in order.

I'll buy you a beer, or do you have some other idea, remember I've already sampled/ no let's not go there.....

The beer will be on me (exchange eates will kill you - keeping this OT). 'Sample' is not the right word for what I'm known for, as Joe & Joe will confirm.

Ok Klaas beers aside,I will bring this thread kicking & screaming back to why things have come to this discussion one way or another.
Cameron saw how things were panning out in Europe & nobody was really listening to him , the electorate were not happy because nobody were listening to them. Cameron obviously envisaged a no win situation so threw the ball firmly in the hands of the nation, all covered up as a big call down to MR/MRS on the street. Simplistic yes. Where is Cameron now? He's lending his name to who ever pays him......

The problem with that is it was either yes or no. So you have a very strong split now, which isn't good for how the UK used to work. Especially when it goes all independent, you need to be pulling at the same end of the rope.

That's the problem with any electoral system, but is worst with the party system: I can't vote for someone to represent my views, only those which his party happens to espouse.

To quote that acute observer W.S. Gilbert, a mere hundred years ago or so:

Indeed, but I don't think that the voting public envisioned what's going on now after Cameron buggered off into the wide blue yonder.

Just one thing on this, whilst your point is absolutely correct about recognising the next generation as they are your future customers* I couldn't help thinking it was ironic that the Tories get accused of being selfish but Labour are all heart so by offering free university education they are generous, leading to a lot of people voting based on the promise as it was very favourable to them personally - that fits my definition of being selfish! Hey-ho.

*As this is a motoring forum I'll relate a car story - I remember very well that as a teenager living in Cheshire the local Ferrari dealer was Strattons, the owner, Ron Stratton, was very happy for school kids to go in the showroom and look at the cars and sit in them on the basis that if they could later afford a Ferrari they would be more likely to go back to him. If he was still in business and I could afford a Ferrari I would get it from him!

Yes that's why 'changing times' are so hard. If your previous aim was caring for the elderly because they live longer so have to live on post-wirk income longer and afford all the illnesses and pains that belong to being older, and then suddenly shift to supporting the younger because they can't zfford college and a house or a family, you will have a generation that has been left out in both systems.

Fact of the matter is: you have to try and find a system that drives economy and innovation and not just have systems that redistribute wealth or cover those that are left out at a certain time, because you'll always be too late to introduce it and you can't anticipate change. But hey that's the problem with any government that tries to make things fair. Yes you get rid of medieval shit and pre-industrial stuff like child labour or extreme poverty, but it's not like you can be fair to anyone.

But hey...
- I don't like people that do shit but get money
- I don't like cowboy builders
- I don't like serial entrepreneurs that let their companies go bankrupt after taking the money out
- I don't like super conservative people who are opposed to changing times

... but I'm sure many don't mind abusing the system and get more than they deserve.

I'd very much like a system that equally rewards 'hours of work' and on top of that rewards innovation / efforts that have a great impact on the long term economy.

Now all that's left is find such a system.

Tories haven't been in smith sq for at least ten years. Just for info ;-)

Jeez, you're right. Now I remember there were these great photographs taken after they left
Will that woman never leave us alone

One thing I'm still trying to work out is that when Banksie says 'vote labour and I'll give you a free picture' to his fans, that's interference with the political process, bribery and corruption... but when Corbyn says 'vote labour and I'll give you thirty grand' that's politics in action.

And as an aside: for a lot of this campaign, politicians of all flavours have been banging on about 'fully costed' budget promises and yet not one has actually published anything that might allow an electorate to work out whether their promises mean anything.

All the time one hears 'this will cost two hundred million, that will cost a billion, this will cost ten billion...' with no indication of whether 'this' is a large or a small number in the context of the overall budget.

The information is vaguely discoverable, but never in the current year, and definitely never at the same time as promises are being made: a very cynical attempt to deceive.

You are spot on Neil.

What I would like to see are figures printed on paper showing each party's promises with all the calculations there for all to see.

Then at least the voters could have some kind of idea to help them make a decision.

I guess they would just baffle it though and would we trust them?

It's at the point of very serious decision making being carried out by an uniformed majority of voters.

Well it's to late really!

I think the current democratic process is a bit broken in this day and age. Ours was designed how long ago? Certainly in a time when a horse was the fastest mode of transport and the only significant change was giving women the vote. In this era, there ought to be a much better and sophisticated way of determining policy.

I agree MRS. For one thing, I think finding a secure way to enable voting online is an inevitable goal if current and future generations are to be encouraged to take part in the democratic process.

Online voting will probably be here in the future, but you can't get much easier than postal voting at the moment, so no excuses really.

Postal votes can be obviously posted or dropped off at the polling station on polling day.

People do like the 'experience' of going into a polling station though and as a Poll Clerk at a polling station, I like the extra money too, so hope online voting doesn't happen too soon

I understand your point, T, but I know how difficult it is to get teenagers to do anything at all that isn't online. The idea of using the post would send them into a total tailspin.

Here's an idea. Raise the voting age limit.
So that we don't get a repeat of Corbyn's education fee skullduggery!

Call me reactionary or whatever, but I think there's more scope for vote-rigging or even crashes by introducing online voting.

It's not being reactionary, it is currently how the technology is. But electronic voting will come at some point.
Joe - I don't know about raising the voting age, but I certainly wouldn't be lowering it to 16.

I wonder about limiting political terms to ten years. Get rid of career politicians.

Indeed. If you were keeping up with the full details of the Snowden leaks you'd see that the NSA and GCHQ have already developed systems specifically for manipulating the results of online polls.

The latest poll predicts Labour would easily win a second election. Theresa May is bonkers to seek an alliance with the DUP, if a recent Liverpool riot caused by an Orangemen's parade (quickly organised to celebrate their new-found power) is anything to go by. It goes against the Good Friday Agreement to favour one side. Peace in NI is in jeopardy just to save May's skin! The DUP is also implicated in the Sainsbury's car park murder. If the Queen's speech is rejected, Corbyn gets a chance to form a government. If his speech is also rejected, a new General Election is automatically triggered. So it's win-win for Corbyn. Hooray!

Annie - the only way Corbyn can form a government is with the support of the DUP, May only needs them to not vote against her. In terms of support from the DUP it also has to be remembered that Labour wanted to set up a deal with them in 2010 to keep Brown in power so they all are the same as each other when their backs are against the wall. If there is another election Corbyn would not be fighting May which could change things.

The first criteria has to be that anyone who wants to be a politician should be barred from being involved! As that may be impractical maybe they should have fixed limits but any income they receive for life afterwards being directly related to the ongoing success of the policies they implement to avoid short term thinking.

Well maybe, but no point in inviting Sinn Fein along too since they won't take up their 7 seats in Parliament?

Labour are deluded to thing they can take over without a new election!
The Tory's got substantially more votes than any other party as well as more seats so they are the nations favoured choice at the time of voting

The torys have left a mess but corbyn taking over is the last think this country needs "win win" for labour is "lose lose" for the uk

We just need stability and continuity and then get brexit sorted, hopefully a bit more pragmatic now we have a government without a majority

But as soon as the brexit deal or no deal is done we need a new election to set this countries future on course to a successful future with the younger generation at the heart of it

My feelings are corbyn only announced the tuition fees in a desperate attempt to win and I still believe he needs to be replaced to win over more labour supporters as I know quite a few that could not vote labour because of him

H_R I'm don't think you are entirely right. I don't think Labour could take over without another election but I also think your view are, well not old school exactly, but rooted in the thinking that became mainstream since Magaret Thatchers days, the emergence of the yuppies and the importance of self and self wealth. PeopleThe media and other unbelievers keep stating that Corbyn couldn't lead the party/country but it would not be a dictatorship. It would be Labour that got in not Corbyn. The same applies to any party but i think the country (or a lot of us - especially younger peeps) are sick and tired of rhetoric, spin and lies. It is about the party and policies more than personalities and policies that can benefit the country as a whole rather than certain wealthy individuals.

When I said "win win for labour" I was quoting from above and didn't mean to be specific about it being labour but was keeping it in context, it was more to clarify the point that we need stability not continuous disruption!

As with Corbyn, I'm generalising but out of the people I know, it's the older true working class labour voters that are saying they cannot vote for him and the new voters that support him are the younger new generation of voters!

i know it's the party you should vote for but it's figurehead does play a major part in it, sometimes far too much!

In another thread I mentioned I was politically homeless and I still feel that's true I just want the best possible brexit outcome at the moment then to sort the country out after brexit

That’s not strictly true; a little under 21% of the UK voted for a Conservative government.

They got the most votes of any single party, fair enough, but it’s arguable that more people voted not to have another 5 years of Tory rule (if we assume that a large number of people voting Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid and Green would rather lose a kidney than have the Tories in charge again).

They also got the most seats by some margin, but the margin is only so large because of our bent political system. If we had proportional representation, the Tories would have ended up on 189 seats and Labour on 178. Much closer.

In any case, I completely agree with you that Corbyn has no mandate to try and form a government and he is silly to think that he does.

If I were Labour, I wouldn’t be too hasty to take the reins at the moment. Whoever is in Number 10 has the unenviable task of negotiating their way out of the EU. It’s a poisoned chalice and I don’t see anyone coming out of it with much of a political career intact.

No deal we strike will be good enough for the 48% of the country who didn’t want it to happen and the tabloid media don’t seem to be able to report anything but doom and gloom these days.

If I were Labour, I’d bide my time. Build on the support they’ve already generated and reach out to some of the big name MPs who left the cabinet some time ago (Benn, Cooper, et al.) Focus on firming up those marginal seats and go to town on the marginally lost ones to turn them red in 5 years’ time.

They ultimately need a plan for Scotland though. If they want a chance of beating the Tories at the next election they need to win back some of those seats lost to the SNP 2 years ago.

21% of votes.
I never saw it like that that's a good point! but I guess that also means that even more people did not want the other parties in too!

I don't really know much about the Scottish vote so cannot comment

I also agree with other parties biding their time and think this was the main reason the torys wanted an election now so they have some time after brexit to try to gain some credibility after what is bound to be viewed as a disastrous deal no matter what happens, they know they will be very unpopular after brexit and with the original election being at the end of negotiations they were guaranteed not to get in

When brexit was voted for last year,are there figures showing what political party the pro brexit voters favored?

It would be interesting to know.

Many of the pro-brexit areas were traditional Labour regions. On the BBC coverage of the election results they seemed surprised that the UKIP vote from 2015 was split between Labour and the Conservatives. It struck me that completely ignored those who wanted Brexit two years ago, well before the referendum was called, and voted UKIP instead of Labour, then voted out. Now they have got that and a Labour manifesto that committed to leave the EU and the single market they went back to their traditional party.

Conservative polled 42.4%
Labour 40.0%

The difference this time could be that, even the voters that wanted remain , accepted Brexit and wanted the best brexit outcome!(allegedly)
So i think these results this year are fairly difficult to put in one box or another

Anyone wishing to stand for parliament in a particular constituency should have to live and work there (in a non-political capacity) for 3 years.

For the first time in my life, I'm looking enviously at France's political situation...

Thought you was about to say you were going to run as a candidate

Sounds like a good idea Jim!

The system is definitely limited and not always representative!

That is a really good idea Jim, would certainly liven things up a lot to be restricted to locals. My neighbouring MP is Yvette Cooper and I doubt she had ever even visited Pontefract before she became candidate. Having a close relationship with Tony Bliar's mate Bill Clinton was the criteria that got her the nod rather than anything relevant to Yorkshire.

Yes, of those that voted.

They're the only ones that count, though. There's absolutely no data to suggest that those that voted aren't representative of those that didn't.

Well, except to suggest that they actually care about the result...

Whilst not entirely correct I think it has to be said that those who can vote but don't accept the result of the majority of others. If you specifically want to make a statement about not voting it is better to spoil the paper in my view.

So who else have the Tories got? Boris Johnson? Michael Gove? No contest!!

No way should Corbyn let ANY of those back-stabbers - Cooper, Eagle, Benn, etc - back in the shadow cabinet. After Benn's pro-bombing Syria speech I wonder how could the wonderful Tony Benn have spawned such a slimey toad!

I didn't make any assertion otherwise. Merely pointing out that "the majority of the country" didn't vote for the Tories.

That's the same in every election - I'm not sure what it adds.

Actually, having thought about it in more detail, I think it could be argued that increased turnout would have resulted in a great number of votes for Labour.

The young (18-29 year olds) turned out in greater numbers than expected and, according to a couple of polls*, around 65% of them voted Labour versus 22% for the Conservatives.

But, despite the large increase in the youth vote, they are still the demographic who voted the least.

So the majority of people who didn’t vote were the young and if we assume that they would have voted in the same kind of pattern as the rest of their demographic then the vote could have looked very different.

This is all moot though, those that didn’t vote don’t impact the result.


*Lord Ashcroft’s exit poll and a poll conducted by YouGov since the election.