June Election UK. Which Party do you think should win the election

[whichphilosophy]

So you admit that you don't read them, just look at humourous and provocative Sun covers (and possibly page 3 girls?), and can't state any specific "hysterical lies" they published, but are still convinced that they spread "hysterical lies" about Jeremy Corbyn?

Naturally, like all decent people, Mr Corbyn has an open mind on the anti-nazi Resistance, whereas you are as nazi-supporting racist.

LMAO!

Calling Nazi-like Palestinian and pro-Palestinian terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah "anti-nazi Resistance" is prime example of alt-Left Newspeak!

P.S.: That wasn't a bad cover! Yeah, it's partisan as hell, but it's still funny.

Labour would do well to bin the Cor and pick a mainstream leader who can actually win and successfully govern.
P.P.S.: What Corbyn's friends from Hamas are up to these days:
UNRWA discovers Hamas tunnel under Gaza schools

Both parties are useless as each other so it does not matter who forms the next government.

 

[bilby]

Both parties are useless as each other so it does not matter who forms the next government.

Even if that premise were true (and it's not), the conclusion would remain false.

The two largest parties are non-identical; it is therefore logically necessary that one will be better than the other, for any given definition of 'better'.

It's always preferable to select the less bad option than it is to accept a random selection.

- - - Updated - - -

The results are obviously confusing some people, so here's a simple summary:

 

[Philos]

Both parties are useless as each other so it does not matter who forms the next government.

wp,

This is just an anecdotal observation, no claim intended. When I have heard the 'both parties useless' argument in the past, it has turned out I was talking to a conservative.

A.

 

[bilby]

Not without Labour actually winning enough to form a government under Comrade Jezza.

Minority government is not unprecedented.

To form government, a party (or coalition) must be able to pass a Queen's Speech, and survive a no confidence vote in the Commons.

A Con-DUP coalition may not be able to do this - the DUP have some very ugly policies, and are (like all religious fundamentalists) averse to compromise.

If the DUP insists on anti-homosexuality measures in the Queen's Speech as a prerequisite for coalition, for example, then you could expect a Tory back-bench revolt - there are lots of Tory MPs with marginal constituencies who would refuse to support such a position, as they would know that they would likely lose their seats at the next election if they did.

If the Tories can't form government, then Labour could present an inoffensive platform and gain the support of the house; they only need a few abstentions from Conservative MPs who don't want to go back to the polls in order to make this work.

Harold Wilson was able to successfully form a minority government in 1974 without forming a coalition with the Liberal party, who held the balance of power. So it's not just theoretical - it's happened before (and in circumstances with a number of striking similarities to today).

 

[whichphilosophy]

Both parties are useless as each other so it does not matter who forms the next government.

wp,

This is just an anecdotal observation, no claim intended. When I have heard the 'both parties useless' argument in the past, it has turned out I was talking to a conservative.

A.

The fact is they are. If you look at their track records then both are useless. There are good things in socialism and free enterprise, state run and private systems but the quality of management right or left is of paramount importance.

The government needs to invest in affordable housing infrastructure which has been largely neglected for over 30 years. The money gets returned in rents. With less paid in rent, lower paid (and nowadays middle incomes) have more spending money at their disposal to plough back into the economy thus creating new jobs.

Unfortunately and not so, with increased disposable income a government would be able to raise a shade more tax for expanding on hospitals schools and the NHS. The keyword is not too much.

At the moment we are taking in too many migrants which even Labour on the left mostly agree. We need some and are obliged to take in Asylum seekers and refugees.

The first results would possibly take 2 or 3 years starting with house building.

With more affordable houses and restrictions on foreign investors snapping up properties, prices would go down to make them more affordable.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not without Labour actually winning enough to form a government under Comrade Jezza.

Minority government is not unprecedented.

To form government, a party (or coalition) must be able to pass a Queen's Speech, and survive a no confidence vote in the Commons.

A Con-DUP coalition may not be able to do this - the DUP have some very ugly policies, and are (like all religious fundamentalists) averse to compromise.

If the DUP insists on anti-homosexuality measures in the Queen's Speech as a prerequisite for coalition, for example, then you could expect a Tory back-bench revolt - there are lots of Tory MPs with marginal constituencies who would refuse to support such a position, as they would know that they would likely lose their seats at the next election if they did.

If the Tories can't form government, then Labour could present an inoffensive platform and gain the support of the house; they only need a few abstentions from Conservative MPs who don't want to go back to the polls in order to make this work.

Harold Wilson was able to successfully form a minority government in a Commons where Ted Heath's Conservatives were the largest party. So it's not just theoretical - it's happened before (and in circumstances with a number of striking similarities to today).

Politics is sometimes analogous to prostitution. The Tories will make it worthwhile for the DUP to be in bed with them so that May can remain in power.

 

[bilby]

Politics is sometimes analogous to prostitution. The Tories will make it worthwhile for the DUP to be in bed with them so that May can remain in power.

Sure, they can try; but the better the deal looks to the DUP, the worse it looks to the Tory back bench.

There's no point successfully wooing ten DUP votes if doing so loses her even as few as four or five Tory votes, leaving her once again short of a majority.

It's therefore going to need a delicate and subtle diplomatic balancing act to bring off a Con-DUP coalition; and neither subtlety nor diplomacy are things that either May or the DUP are famous for.

 

[Derec]

Minority government is not unprecedented.

No they are not. Minority governments from that far behind, however, are.

To form government, a party (or coalition) must be able to pass a Queen's Speech, and survive a no confidence vote in the Commons.

Corbyn could not even get the confidence of a majority of his own Labour MPs.

A Con-DUP coalition may not be able to do this - the DUP have some very ugly policies, and are (like all religious fundamentalists) averse to compromise.

Well it would not be a coalition, but you are right. Things with DUP are still up in the air.

If the Tories can't form government, then Labour could present an inoffensive platform and gain the support of the house; they only need a few abstentions from Conservative MPs who don't want to go back to the polls in order to make this work.

If Tories can't form the government with DUP, they can try with LibDems again. They only need 8 MPs to "confidence and supply" with them.
And if that fails, new elections ("no not again")are far more likely than Labour forming a government. Again, they need 64 MPs to go along, which is a tall order.
And do you really think Corbyn would be willing to "present an inoffensive platform"?
If Labour had 20 seats more and agreed to dump Corbyn and go with somebody with broader appeal, they'd have a chance. As it stands, no.

Harold Wilson was able to successfully form a minority government in 1974 without forming a coalition with the Liberal party, who held the balance of power. So it's not just theoretical - it's happened before (and in circumstances with a number of striking similarities to today).

A number of striking similarities? Other than a hung parliament?
And Labour had 301 seats in the first 1974 election. That put them much closer (318 were needed back then) to majority than Labour are now.
And that minority government wasn't stable either, and there were new elections later that year, which Labour won outright, albeit with a very slim majority. Bit that just turned out to be the last hurrah for Old Labor. At least for now.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Politics is sometimes analogous to prostitution. The Tories will make it worthwhile for the DUP to be in bed with them so that May can remain in power.

Sure, they can try; but the better the deal looks to the DUP, the worse it looks to the Tory back bench.

There's no point successfully wooing ten DUP votes if doing so loses her even as few as four or five Tory votes, leaving her once again short of a majority.

It's therefore going to need a delicate and subtle diplomatic balancing act to bring off a Con-DUP coalition; and neither subtlety nor diplomacy are things that either May or the DUP are famous for.

May hasn't been that bad on diplomacy, but certainly good at talking. She's just useless at doing anything.

 

[Derec]

Can one of you Brits explain to me how somebody as radical and incompetent as Diane Abbott was ever selected as shadow Home Secretary?

Is she still fucking Jeremy Corbyn or what?

 

[iolo]

Can one of you Brits explain to me how somebody as radical and incompetent as Diane Abbott was ever selected as shadow Home Secretary?

Is she still fucking Jeremy Corbyn or what?

Her views are those of the vast majority of the population, but she is apparently ill in some way.

 

[Derec]

Her views are those of the vast majority of the population,

Vast majority of UK population think hiring 10,000 police officers costs £300,000. Or was that £80,000,000? She was not quite sure but both figures are way too low. (example of her incompetence)
Vast majority of UK population think Mao was on balance more good than bad? Or that "every defeat for the British state is a win for all of us"? (example of her radicalism)

but she is apparently ill in some way.

Maybe that was just an excuse to get her out of the way.

 

[iolo]

Vast majority of UK population think hiring 10,000 police officers costs £300,000. Or was that £80,000,000? She was not quite sure but both figures are way too low. (example of her incompetence)
Vast majority of UK population think Mao was on balance more good than bad? Or that "every defeat for the British state is a win for all of us"? (example of her radicalism)

but she is apparently ill in some way.

Maybe that was just an excuse to get her out of the way.

Perhaps she was just having a memory lapse, such as you began many years ago and haven't come out of yet? And every defeat for the British State is obviously a victory for all of us when it's run by Nazis, though I very much doubt she said it, except in your drink-sodden imagination.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Can one of you Brits explain to me how somebody as radical and incompetent as Diane Abbott was ever selected as shadow Home Secretary?

Is she still fucking Jeremy Corbyn or what?

Her views are those of the vast majority of the population, but she is apparently ill in some way.

She represents the left wing but is quite popular. Considering her age, the rushed manifesto and her illness, which I have no doubt is genuine, it is easy to make an error.

We need more police and ideally some more troops for homeland security at least in key areas. I went to Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross today and security was quite tight there.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Can one of you Brits explain to me how somebody as radical and incompetent as Diane Abbott was ever selected as shadow Home Secretary?

Is she still fucking Jeremy Corbyn or what?

Whether May was either more left or more right, she did nothing as Home Secretary and in terms of incompetency Diane would have some big boots to fill.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Labour now has a six-point lead over the Tories, new poll finds

Figures show a swing of eight points for Jeremy Corbyn's party since the general election

source

 

[whichphilosophy]

Labour now has a six-point lead over the Tories, new poll finds

Figures show a swing of eight points for Jeremy Corbyn's party since the general election

source

If he had won the election, he would have done a left-wing version of Donald Trump. He was even an outsider who was though unlikely to be chosen for the Labour Party's leadership.

 

[bilby]

Minority government is not unprecedented.

No they are not. Minority governments from that far behind, however, are.

To form government, a party (or coalition) must be able to pass a Queen's Speech, and survive a no confidence vote in the Commons.

Corbyn could not even get the confidence of a majority of his own Labour MPs.

I think you are wrong. That would have been the case even a few weeks ago, but this election has made it very clear, even to the hardened Blairites, that Corbyn's style of socialism can be made popular with the voters - and unelectability was the main objection within the party.

A Con-DUP coalition may not be able to do this - the DUP have some very ugly policies, and are (like all religious fundamentalists) averse to compromise.

Well it would not be a coalition, but you are right. Things with DUP are still up in the air.

It cannot be a formal coalition, as that would break the terms of the Good Friday agreement; And an informal support of confidence and supply is probably also illegal (though they might well get away with it). If the DUP promise to vote with the government, then IMO it's a coalition, whether they have any cabinet positions or not.

If the Tories can't form government, then Labour could present an inoffensive platform and gain the support of the house; they only need a few abstentions from Conservative MPs who don't want to go back to the polls in order to make this work.

If Tories can't form the government with DUP, they can try with LibDems again. They only need 8 MPs to "confidence and supply" with them.

Even the LibDems are not stupid enough to repeat the disaster that coalition with the Tories brought upon them.

And if that fails, new elections ("no not again")are far more likely than Labour forming a government. Again, they need 64 MPs to go along, which is a tall order.

I expect new elections in short order regardless. And I expect Labour to win a majority - certainly they have the momentum on their side.

And do you really think Corbyn would be willing to "present an inoffensive platform"?

Yes. He's no extremist, despite what Rupert Murdoch and his ilk would have you believe.

If Labour had 20 seats more and agreed to dump Corbyn and go with somebody with broader appeal, they'd have a chance. As it stands, no.

You really need to read fewer tabloid newspapers, if you want to get a handle on what appeals to the British public, or to the Labour back bench, for that matter.

Harold Wilson was able to successfully form a minority government in 1974 without forming a coalition with the Liberal party, who held the balance of power. So it's not just theoretical - it's happened before (and in circumstances with a number of striking similarities to today).

A number of striking similarities? Other than a hung parliament?
And Labour had 301 seats in the first 1974 election. That put them much closer (318 were needed back then) to majority than Labour are now.
And that minority government wasn't stable either, and there were new elections later that year, which Labour won outright, albeit with a very slim majority. Bit that just turned out to be the last hurrah for Old Labor. At least for now.

Well, that's another similarity for you - we can reasonably expect elections later this year, which Labour will win outright (or possibly with the support of SNP, who were not a factor in 1974).

 

[Derec]

She represents the left wing but is quite popular.

Among whom?

Considering her age, the rushed manifesto and her illness, which I have no doubt is genuine, it is easy to make an error.

This is the bumbling interview on police.

She is as bad as Sarah Palin on a bad day. But because she is a lefty, she gets a pass.

We need more police and ideally some more troops for homeland security at least in key areas. I went to Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross today and security was quite tight there.

I think May made a mistake in cutting the police force for sure. But one must realize that this money will not come from the magic money tree.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps she was just having a memory lapse, such as you began many years ago and haven't come out of yet?

You are being nonsensical again. I have a great memory, unlike Corbyn's former shadow secretary and (former?) fuck buddy.
Reds in the bed: Jeremy, Diane and a naked romp in a Cotswolds field... and Labour leader even took his lover on a romantic road trip to East Germany

And every defeat for the British State is obviously a victory for all of us when it's run by Nazis, though I very much doubt she said it, except in your drink-sodden imagination.

Do you think UK is run by Nazis? Does she?

though I very much doubt she said it, except in your drink-sodden imagination.

Oh, she said it.

Her excuse is that "the afro made her do it" ...