General Election 2017: The Results and Aftermath

[najaB]

I can't send straws through this forum, otherwise I'd send a Special Delivery so you'd have some to desperately clutch : oh, late news! All available straws have been airlifted to a Mrs May in Downing Street.

Indeed. It's hard to claim anyone was a bigger loser in this election than than Mrs May. She went from having a workable majority to a minority government, while Nicola Sturgeon went from the leader of the third biggest party to leader of the third biggest party (as well as going from having the majority of Scottish MPs to having the majority of Scottish MPs).

 

[Butts]

I thought most non - Conservative forum members would prefer a Tory/DUP pact to a majority Conservative Administration.

As I understand it the DUP are soft Brexit, favour the single Market and want to retain the "Triple Lock".

Surely this will result in a more moderate approach to most issues ?

Incidentally has anyone looked at the Political Map of the UK - despite the losses if the Election was won by land mass the Tories would be clear winners it is still a sea of blue - especially England. In the North of England (real) and South of Scotland it is pure Blue apart from Workington

No area either side of the of the Border is in anything but Tory Hands

 

[Busaholic]

Indeed. It's hard to claim anyone was a bigger loser in this election than than Mrs May. She went from having a workable majority to a minority government, while Nicola Sturgeon went from the leader of the third biggest party to leader of the third biggest party (as well as going from having the majority of Scottish MPs to having the majority of Scottish MPs).

You have perspective.

 

[backontrack]

Incidentally has anyone looked at the Political Map of the UK - despite the losses if the Election was won by land mass the Tories would be clear winners it is still a sea of blue - especially England. In the North of England (real) and South of Scotland it is pure Blue apart from Workington

The Tories have bigger seats because rural voters and landowners support the Conservatives. Simple. Labour are strongest in metropolitan areas, where seats are smaller but population is much higher.

Out of the entire North East region, only Berwick, Hexham and Guisborough remain Tory. In fact, there are far more Labour seats - far, far more - in the north of England than there are Conservative. Claiming that these seats are not the 'real' north is at best idiocy.

 

[Butts]

The Tories have bigger seats because rural voters and landowners support the Conservatives. Simple. Labour are strongest in metropolitan areas, where seats are smaller but population is much higher.

Out of the entire North East region, only Berwick, Hexham and Guisborough remain Tory. In fact, there are far more Labour seats - far, far more - in the north of England than there are Conservative. Claiming that these seats are not the 'real' north is at best idiocy.

Have you checked West Wales and Northern Scotland before making that assertion ?

 

[Butts]

Indeed. It's hard to claim anyone was a bigger loser in this election than than Mrs May. She went from having a workable majority to a minority government, while Nicola Sturgeon went from the leader of the third biggest party to leader of the third biggest party (as well as going from having the majority of Scottish MPs to having the majority of Scottish MPs).

I take it you realise that if the Tories had not gained so many seats in Scotland Corbyn would probably have become Prime Minister !!

I bet that hurts

 

[backontrack]

I take it you realise that if the Tories had not gained so many seats in Scotland Corbyn would probably have become Prime Minister !!

I bet that hurts

Nah. The Tories have to negotiate Brexit now - there is literally no way this could have happened better

The Tories are obliged to set up a government, and the DUP will hopefully have soft Brexit demands of their own, or the Tories will lose votes. Public services will continue as they are but when things hit rock bottom there will be - and I speak cautiously - a Labour landslide.

 

[najaB]

I take it you realise that if the Tories had not gained so many seats in Scotland Corbyn would probably have become Prime Minister !!

I bet that hurts

Not sure how you've figured that one out, if the SNP had held all their seats then the Tories would still be the largest party and I doubt the SNP and Labour would have been able to form a coalition.

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you checked West Wales and Northern Scotland before making that assertion ?

It is generally true, though. Tories tend to support incumbent landowners, businesspeople, farmers, the very wealthy and the Establishment. Arguing about a small number of seats in distinctive parts of Not England doesn't change the generalisation.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not sure how you've figured that one out, if the SNP had held all their seats then the Tories would still be the largest party and I doubt the SNP and Labour would have been able to form a coalition.

Maybe not Prime Minister but wow it would have been interesting! If we assume that the SNP held the 12 seats that they lost the Tories would have been down on 306 seats so even with their new DUP 'friends' they'd only have 316 seats which would leave them short of a majority even accounting for Sinn Féin not taking their seats.

So May would be into leading a proper minority Government and you can bet that the other parties would be making sure that she had a nightmare trying to pass any votes at all.

 

[3141]

Just highlighting that the Conservatives seem to be under the impression that a majority government is the only way to function. As evidenced by the election leaflets, campaign, attitude... The Tories seem to be under the impression that no-one (including themselves) can govern as a minority.

Thanks. I'd say that presenting the idea that only a majority government is practicable is what a party would do to persuade voters to support them. And it does enable things to be done more quickly. Compare that with the experience in some other countries where minority governments are the norm, but coalitions or less formal agreements fall apart after only a year or two, and sometimes less. But the Conservatives are now going to have to make it work.

 

[me123]

The statement that a majority government is essential backfires somewhat when you lose that majority though. All the talk of strength and stability suddenly goes out the window.

I personally don't have a problem with minority administrations. The SNP are running one in Scotland at the moment, quite successfully, and have done so in the past too. It does mean compromise, but that's not a bad thing. It gets bits and pieces from other manifestos onto the table which results in much more balance. If the government lacks the support it needs for a bill, it could perhaps gather support by offering to support another party's manifesto commitment in return for support (or perhaps even just abstention).

 

[Y961 XBU]

I believe the Greens are holding the SNP up in Hollyrood, they seem to agree on most things so its a partnership that makes sense, as a Green Party voter myself i would not have a problem with a formal working relationship up there

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Ten years of austerity gives the young little hope of progression or even earning much money - that'll be their life lesson.

Austerity shouldn't be seen as one sided as it normally is by the freeloading lefties.

Austerity can be a good thing as it means that one can save even more money by cutting back and by cutting back, you save even more money - I've done this and I'm seeing the money pour in, so much so that owning my own home will happen faster because I've cut back and set a strict budget to work to and not expected everything to be given to me on a plate.

 

[AlterEgo]

Austerity shouldn't be seen as one sided as it normally is by the freeloading lefties.

I think it's fair game to claim it's one sided when it is the poorest who will feel the effects of it most.

 

[GusB]

freeloading lefties

Please explain.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Austerity can be a good thing as it means that one can save even more money by cutting back and by cutting back, you save even more money - I've done this and I'm seeing the money pour in, so much so that owning my own home will happen faster because I've cut back and set a strict budget to work to and not expected everything to be given to me on a plate.

It simply doesn't work that way for Governments. Sure, when you yourself cut back, you save exactly the amount of money by which you've cut back. Austerity generally works for individuals provided the things you're cutting back on aren't things you actually need to live. However for Governments it's different because of the way money flows in a circular fashion around the economy. As soon as the Government cuts back, that means someone is earning that amount of money less, and that means that person is paying less taxation. That person also spends less, which mean other people earn less, so they also pay less taxation, so the Government's income falls. The result is that, except in special circumstances, austerity doesn't work particularly well for entire countries (and why I maintain that the Conservatives, on the whole, don't understand basic economics).

 

[me123]

Austerity shouldn't be seen as one sided as it normally is by the freeloading lefties.

Whilst the most vulnerable in society have been hit the hardest, those earning over £100,000pa have had a significant tax break. It's hard not to see that as one-sided. You can talk about home ownership all you like, but the people who have suffered the most under the Conservative and Coalition administrations are people who have never realistically been able to aspire to home ownership, and are now less likely to do so than ever before.

But then again, I'm a "freeloading leftie" aren't I? :roll:

I'm someone who's worked hard and have enough money for a deposit. I've got to this position through a combination of hard work and (let's be honest here) luck. Yet the Conservatives would rather give me £1000pa on a Help to Buy ISA, or Lifetime ISA, rather than spend that money on social care, or the health service, or helping the most vulnerable in society. It frankly disgusts me that they think giving hand outs to people who can save thousands of pounds a year is a good use of tax money whilst many nurses, skilled professionals working in the public sector, have to use food banks.

Austerity as practised by the Conservatives is not a good thing. It is damaging our society. It is creating a cataclysmic divide between the wealthiest and the poorest. It is leaving the vulnerable behind whilst making life easier for those with six figure salaries. It's not just about working hard, as is often claimed. There are people in abject deprivation who work very hard and get nowhere. Perhaps rather than giving handouts to the wealthy, the government should be supporting these individuals.

Sadly, the government has demonstrated that it does not have any intention of doing so. Rather, this government has demonstrably made life easier for the richest in society and made life harder for the most vulnerable.

 

[Starmill]

Austerity shouldn't be seen as one sided as it normally is by the freeloading lefties.

Austerity can be a good thing as it means that one can save even more money by cutting back and by cutting back, you save even more money - I've done this and I'm seeing the money pour in, so much so that owning my own home will happen faster because I've cut back and set a strict budget to work to and not expected everything to be given to me on a plate.

Except for the fact that you personally cannot borrow a quasi-unlimited value of money at next to no cost at all?

When the interest on new government bonds is lower than inflation, there's a good argument that borrowing money and spending it now is
actually cheaper than running a surplus.

Of course debt needs to remain manageable. Debt as a percentage of GDP has grown from a perfectly manageable 60% ish in 2010 to about 85% now - which is a bit of a problem. The causes of this are complex and disputed, but I would lay it mostly at weak growth as a direct result of austerity. Low wages (and below average wage growth) and rising inequality over this 7 year period are also suggested strongly by the data, which I think has a bigger effect on GDP than people recognise.

I would also make the case that where public spending is related to life and death issues, such as the number of hospital beds and the number of children in poverty, there is no case for considering the debt to GDP ratio rather than simply spending the money where it will count most to reduce this. I know providing high standards in healthcare and making sure that children have food and clothes are highly controversial issues in English politics but I would argue the line must be drawn somewhere and that's where I'd put it.

As investment increases, wages rise and people and firms feel more confident about a government that will manage the economy and earnings/inequality more competently than the past two have, I would expect to see more GDP growth, increasing tax revenue and the debt to GDP ratio falling quickly.

But that's just me. These ideas are not explained very clearly by any politicians!

PS It's worth pointing out that Japan has a debt to GDP ratio that tops 135% - yields on a Japanese government bond are still effectively zero. The German government has been able to issue bonds at negative interest rates in recent times, meaning they are being paid to borrow money from investors.

 

[HSTEd]

Its interesting that many people, typically from a certain generation, decry their childrens generation when they ask what happened to the universal public services that the parents enjoyed.
They normally respond with some argument based on the four Yorkshireman's sketch - saying that the children should just accept their lot because they were poor when they were young etc etc.

Always leaving out that older people's parents were living in similar penury to their children, when these days there is a drastic difference in living conditions.

In other words, they were poor, but they weren't poor relative to their parents to the extent that the modern generation of young people experience.

At some point this imbalance will have to be redressed, or the older generation will regret it.

He who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind.

 

[Polarbear]

Austerity shouldn't be seen as one sided as it normally is by the freeloading lefties.

Austerity can be a good thing as it means that one can save even more money by cutting back and by cutting back, you save even more money - I've done this and I'm seeing the money pour in, so much so that owning my own home will happen faster because I've cut back and set a strict budget to work to and not expected everything to be given to me on a plate.

On an individual level, I agree. On a wider macro-economic level though, it doesn't work like that.

I'll take two examples that I'm experiencing in my life. Firstly, on a personal level, I'm currently saving for a deposit for a house, and have trimmed my expenditure accordingly. Consequently, I'm saving quite a bit which puts me in a much better position going forward.

On the flip side, I work in the Public Sector, and as such, have been subject to pay restraint for seven years so far. Because of this, I have seen my income go down in real terms over the course of that time frame, whilst the cost of things I have to spend money on, (utilities, council tax, food etc.) have increased at a faster pace.

The upshot of this is that I can't readily afford to buy things like newer clothes, a new car, or say a new music centre - all things I'd like, but haven't the disposable income available to buy.

The knock on effect is that demand within the wider economy drops off, and growth starts to stagnate. That's pretty much what has been happening with the UK economy over the last seven years or so, as by and large, there hasn't been any significant growth.

That for me is the problem with the Austerity programme. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting any whopping big pay rises, but given the macro scale of the cuts being made by the last two governments, it's had the effect of repressing the wider economy, which isn't good for anyone.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with all the points raised about the problems with austerity and the knock on effect it has on the wider economy. In large part this has ben generated by Government policy, however I also believe that a large proportion of this is exacerbated by the globalised nature of the economy. To gain the most value from a pound that you spend, it should ideally be spent within the British economy, then, ideally that company should spend that pound in the British economy, then that company should spend the pound in the British economy, generating value in the economy throughout the supply chain.

Unfortunately we are now in the position where not only do we import too much, but too many of our companies and assets (such as housing) are owned abroad, with the result that wealth is drained away before it even has the chance to percolate through the British economy.

 

[D365]

Austerity can be a good thing as it means that one can save even more money by cutting back and by cutting back, you save even more money - I've done this and I'm seeing the money pour in, so much so that owning my own home will happen faster because I've cut back and set a strict budget to work to and not expected everything to be given to me on a plate.

That's not austerity, that's simple budgeting. But if the tories have been "cutting back" on a scale as effectively as you claim is possible, where have the savings gone to?

(Hint: not clearing the national deficit or balancing the books as was promised!)

 

[me123]

The rumour mill this morning on the Sunday politics shows...

1) Theresa May will not fight another election as Tory leader says Heseltine - hard to argue with that, surely? It was a complete disaster for them, and I can't see her being allowed to lead the party into 2022. Of course, if she calls an election earlier, it would be a disaster for the party. This strongly hints of an early leadership challenge. Heseltine goes on to predict another GE in 2019, following our "totally artificial" negotiations on withdrawal from the EU.

2) Michael Fallon stated the the Tories do not have to agree with every view of the DUP says Michael Fallon, and Nicky Morgan says that a formal coalition would be a "step too far" - so a coalition seems to be off the table completely, but with potentially deep areas of disagreement, can a supply-and-demand deal be viable in the long term?

3) Nicky Morgan goes on to say that there'll likely be an imminent leadership contest, although states they won't go to the polls.

Lots of mixed sentiment on some details, but it looks clear. Theresa May is gone within the next two years.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

2) Michael Fallon stated the the Tories do not have to agree with every view of the DUP says Michael Fallon, and Nicky Morgan says that a formal coalition would be a "step too far" - so a coalition seems to be off the table completely, but with potentially deep areas of disagreement, can a supply-and-demand deal be viable in the long term?

I wonder how much the Tories can 'distance themselves' from the DUP without the DUP feeling rather shirked and taking their ball home.

 

[Kite159]

Boris for PM come October?

 

[deltic]

That's not austerity, that's simple budgeting. But if the tories have been "cutting back" on a scale as effectively as you claim is possible, where have the savings gone to?

(Hint: not clearing the national deficit or balancing the books as was promised!)

Despite the rhetoric overall there has been very little reduction in public spending - certain areas of government have certainly seen their spending slashed but total government spending is down by only 3% from its peak in 2010/11 and is about 10% higher than it was a decade ago.

 

[northwichcat]

Best thing the Conservatives could do is elect Anna Soudbry as leader. Yes she's against a hard Brexit but there's no evidence the majority of the population do want Hard Brexit, if anything the Conservatives losing their majority indicates the majority are against Hard Brexit.

 

[deltic]

It simply doesn't work that way for Governments. Sure, when you yourself cut back, you save exactly the amount of money by which you've cut back. Austerity generally works for individuals provided the things you're cutting back on aren't things you actually need to live. However for Governments it's different because of the way money flows in a circular fashion around the economy. As soon as the Government cuts back, that means someone is earning that amount of money less, and that means that person is paying less taxation. That person also spends less, which mean other people earn less, so they also pay less taxation, so the Government's income falls. The result is that, except in special circumstances, austerity doesn't work particularly well for entire countries (and why I maintain that the Conservatives, on the whole, don't understand basic economics).

But if government cuts back on spending it needs to borrow less, the people who previously lent money to the government now either invest it in other things or spend it. The economy is circular but the flows of money are complex and global. Once the money markets lose confidence in your economy you are sunk, 13 EU countries can borrow money at lower rates than the UK can already and with an unstable government that confidence is likely to decline further.

 

[furnessvale]

Best thing the Conservatives could do is elect Anna Soudbry as leader. Yes she's against a hard Brexit but there's no evidence the majority of the population do want Hard Brexit, if anything the Conservatives losing their majority indicates the majority are against Hard Brexit.

If that was true, I would have expected a higher vote for the LibDems.

Corbyn won his increased vote on student tuition fees and retaining all the various payments to OAPs.