They say a week is a long time in politics, so what about a year? It is a year since the referendum and we have seen that as people have received the Tory message that it will be a hard Brexit, withdrawing from the customs union, the single market, etc. that has been rejected. No other party was proposing that, and the PM tried as hard as she could to focus this election on taking that course. If she thought that was the mandate given to her, she was wrong. David Davis has said that mandate has gone, so we await the next view on what course the government will now take. A year ago some in the UK were predicting that there was anti-EU feeling around Europe, something that would be reflected in the polls as elections would be taking place on the continent. In fact the opposite has happened, driven I suspect by what the voters have seen happen after this disaster of a referendum. There is no way of knowing who voted for a single policy proposed by any of the parties, but we do know that the package of austerity and hard Brexit didn't win over the voters to give the government the go ahead. There now has to be something approaching a middle way, something that here has been found by the emergence of someone who has drawn support from left, right and centre. His party didn't exist a year ago, but has shown that it is possible to propose something very different to the old two parties of left and right, and obtain a huge amount of support. I cannot see such a person in the UK at present, so maybe what we have is the next best thing.
A Pyrrhic victory = You win a match and then realize that most of your players are injured, or suspended for the cup final - you then realize that you didn't need to play the match anyway. But, you won A historical example would have been Napoleon's taking of Moscow. Actually both main parties could make out a case for having 'won' or 'lost' this election - but, for me, the real losers were the tabloid press. For once their propaganda didn't work to the extent it has in the past - they failed to discredit Corbyn in the way they wanted to. There were several watersheds in this election, and that was one - are the newspaper barons losing their influence ? The second watershed was that the youth actually voted in this election - the sceptics will say they were bribed, but that would surely only account for the student vote and for an increased Labour vote in some University towns, whereas this tendency was overall - could it be that many wanted to compensate for 'missing out' on the Brexit vote. The third watershed was that Labour's biggest increase came in the South East of England - the last place you would have expected it. They even took Canterbury for the first time in 100 years.
Student fees were introduced by a Labour government. The increase in costs were sanctioned by the Lib Dems as part of the coalition. Clearly all of the major political parties are responsible for the present situation.
It is a massive gamble in France letting an inexperienced politician lead a party with members that have no experience of politics actually govern. It is far too early to judge the outcome until reforms are attempted. There have been many false dawns in France. France continues to be the most eurosceptic country in the EU.
OK - try a curved ball (it is pure fantasy of course) Nicola Sturgeon approaches Theresa May and offers her own "confidence and supply" deal. "You do not need the toxic DUP, do the deal with me instead. My price for support is to have SNP representatives on the negotiations with a view to finding a deal that is acceptable to Scotland and N Ireland (and incidentally the forgotten 48%). Also a better funding formula for Scotland and finally a guarantee of an IndyRef2 in 2021." This has split my SNP friends with some happy to get a guaranteed second referendum and time to build towards it. About half though hate the Tories so much they would refuse even if it was the only way to guarantee IndyRef2 by then. My unionist friends seem to hate the idea almost to a man. How about English voters - I suspect they too would not be in favour. ........ and yet it gives a solid government for 5 years and tempers the Tories far more than the DUP can.
The turnout in the French election was sharply down compared to 2012 which analysts put down to a sense of resignation among Macron's opponents. This apathy contrasted greatly to the high interest and turnout shown in the UK election.
Well would never happen.... Of course some sort of Govt of National Unity to take us through Brexit would also never work. Currently out political system is not fit for purpose... Where the country cannot decide on one clear party then a different style of govt is needed IMO
It is strange you are now advocating the UK needing a strong government without any kind of coalition. Our political system is the best method of securing such a government with a healthy majority. There is no point in mooting alternative systems because it will never happen. First past the post is here to stay.
People who advocate PR and coalitions tend to be those whose own preference are not in the running for power. We heard a lot about how the UK was moving away from the two party system but this election saw those two parties get a higher percentage of vote than for many years. Neither of them have ever (not surprisingly) supported PR. It is the small parties that want PR. The pity is that our two major parties are currently rubbish - and yet still people vote for them.
It has to be the worst gamble ever in the UK for a PM who has a majority, yet a greed for a larger one, to call an election, and lose her majority.
Norman Smith suggesting this lunchtime that the Queen's Speech is going to be put back for some days, as may the start of Brexit talks. His view is that an arrangement with the DUP is far from certain, and that we could be into another election before many weeks.
No you misunderstand me. Our system only works when one party has a clear majority.. and it has failed to do so in 2 out of the last 3 elections. So it fails at time likes this. I hope i am clear for you
I will still advocate PR, mind you not the mess the LibDems tried to put through. We have it for our MEPs for example. PR ensures minorities get a say and hopefully allows a more inclusive form of Govt.
Are you not a member of the Green Party? If so you are an example of my point. There are arguments both for and against PR. PR does give more inclusive but FPTP gives more stable governments on the whole. You pays your money and you take your choice. Both are legitimate forms of Democracy
Lack of PR. means that the majority of the population is always against the government, I see nothing democratic in that. The FPTP system makes Britain the only one party state in the EU. it fluctuates every 10 years or so - so we have alternating dictatorships.
I disagree. Of course it is much better when the Tories have a stonking majority but the Tory /Lib Dem government was a competent and stable government at a crucial time so clearly was not a failure.
It was the right call, just the content and presentation of the manifesto that proved ineffective. These faults will easily be corrected. Hopefully the Tories have learnt a lesson.
Yes I am... and I will vote tactically as many people will now. Yes agreed... that is the flaw in this system
Again you misunderstand me. I was stating that the current system has failed to give an outright winner in two of the last three elections... IMO an indication that it is not fit for purpose
