Queen's Speech

[rendelharris]

How many voters chose the Tories on the basis of policies (e.g. new grammar schools) which have now been dumped? One feels that in business this would be called taking money under false pretences...to suddenly drop a skipfull of manifesto commitments saying "Oh, we've got to deal with the Brexit which we knew was coming" seems fundamentally dishonest.

[Alan Medic]

.

[edcam]

Well yes, the tories are fundamentally dishonest but have also cocked up in innumerable ways since Cameron called the referendum. I don't remember ever seeing a government realising how unpopular they are before our very eyes in this way. They are aware that if another GE was called today, they'd be out, so anything they can do to not make waves at the moment is the only way they'll stay in power and even then, their days are numbered.

[dbboy]

Any party in Government wants to stay in power and will only concede defeat to the opposition party when absolutely necessary. May will hold on for as long as she can, but her days are numbered, DUP will make sure of that, that when the time suits them the rug will be torn from under May's feet.

[JoeLeg]

I'm neither a Tory nor a Leave voter, but to be honest I'm glad they're focusing on Brexit. If it has to be done then it has to take priority. I think it's their only option, and probably Tory voters recognise that. If May had the majority she (and to be fair a lot us, myself included) thought she would get then everything would get shovelled through regardless.

But she hasn't so she can't and she's fucked anyway.

[rendelharris]

Yes, I'm just wondering whether they would have had even the Pyhrric victory they achieved without the promises that they've now ditched ? for example I seem to recall during the campaign there was a lot of talk of grammar schools playing well with certain sections of the electorate, and I'm sure the vote in some rural communities would have been influenced by the promise to bring back foxhunting. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these policies are out, but I wonder how many would have voted for a government offering Brexit and nothing but?

[Loz]

She didn't actually win the election. Had she won a clear majority and dropped these, you'd have a point.

Actually, there were a couple of pleasant surprises in the QS I didn't know were coming - the tenant fees banning and the right to be forgotten. Shame about all the Project Economic Suicide stuff.

(and a tip of the hat to Jenny1 for that phrase!)

[Loz]

Someone on Twitter has give the Queen an award for "Best Trolling Using a Hat". :))

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She didn't actually win the election. Had she won

> a clear majority and dropped these, you'd have a

> point.

>

> Actually, there were a couple of pleasant

> surprises in the QS I didn't know were coming -

> the tenant fees banning and the right to be

> forgotten. Shame about all the Project Economic

> Suicide stuff.

Well she has won the election in the sense of winning the most votes and forming a government, which one would think should carry with it an obligation to either attempt to pass the legislation you were offering or stand down. As far as I can see she hasn't dropped the policies she had in her manifesto because they would be impossible to pass, her excuse at least is that she needs all parliamentary time for Brexit - did she not know this was going to be the case prior to calling the election?

[uncleglen]

She didn't get a majority because of the fox-hunting in the manifesto....social media is as big on 'let's all hug a bunny, fox, give up meat, legalise dope ..'etc, as it is on 'I don't want to pay my uni fees'

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She didn't get a majority because of the

> fox-hunting in the manifesto....social media is as

> big on 'let's all hug a bunny, fox, give up meat,

> legalise dope ..'etc, as it is on 'I don't want to

> pay my uni fees'

If that's true (which any sane person knows it isn't) what a bloody fool she was to include it then! Careful with that straw you're clutching uncle, they have a tendency to break and drop you right in the midden...

[JoeLeg]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She didn't get a majority because of the

> fox-hunting in the manifesto....social media is as

> big on 'let's all hug a bunny, fox, give up meat,

> legalise dope ..'etc, as it is on 'I don't want to

> pay my uni fees'

Hmmm, interesting.

So it was nothing to do with a rebellious Remain vote (see Kensington), or a disastrous manifesto, or Lynton Crosby repeating his old mistakes.

Well, I'm sure you know better than the Tory party.

[red devil]

I thought the Tory manifesto was only offering MP's a free vote on fox hunting.

As for the QS, May would've been given a hard time if she had stuck rigidly to the manifesto, e.g. not in touch with the mood of the nation, not listening to the people etc etc, a case of damned if she did, damned if she didn't, which basically sums up politics in general...

[Loz]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She didn't get a majority because of the fox-hunting in the manifesto....social media is as

> big on 'let's all hug a bunny, fox, give up meat, legalise dope ..'etc, as it is on 'I don't want to

> pay my uni fees'

If social media were any reliable guide, Corbyn would have 600 MPs and the Greens 50.

[Loz]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Hmmm, interesting.

>

> So it was nothing to do with a rebellious Remain

> vote (see Kensington), or a disastrous manifesto,

> or Lynton Crosby repeating his old mistakes.

Reports suggest that Crosby was pretty much sidelined during the election campaign, right from his email suggesting to May that calling an election was a really bad idea. Which makes sense as the Tory's campaign had a real whiff of amateurism about it.

Like him or hate him, Crosby knows how to run ruthlessly efficient election campaigns.

[red devil]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm glad these

> policies are out, but I wonder how many would have

> voted for a government offering Brexit and nothing

> but

In 2015 UKIP were more or less offering just that, and from memory got about 15% of the vote. Which I reckon is about the figure of a hard core that still want Brexit at any cost. It's a pity Corbyn didn't have the balls to offer a 2nd referendum once details of the deal are known. It's not saying there won't be Brexit, just giving people the choice to decide once the full details are known. I don't think that would've put lots of voters off voting Labour, because as is usual at general elections, people were voting for other issues that are more important to them, NHS, Education etc, the bigger picture not a binary choice. For an election that was supposedly to all be about Brexit, very little was mentioned...

[Jenny1]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> (and a tip of the hat to Jenny1 for that phrase!)

Thank you Loz. Right back at'cha (as I believe our American cousins are wont to say).

[Blah Blah]

I think it is quite clear those manifesto pledges were dropped because she will never get them through the house, and is merely saving her party the embarassment. Let's remember why May wanted this election. She needed an increased majority, mainly to outflank the power of backbench rebels. Although we are going for Brexit, the Tory party is still split over the issue. The only way of guaranteeing getting the Brexit she wants, was to increase that majority. Similarly, Hammond wanted the freedom to raise taxes, and scrap tax credits and enact a few other things that have been forced U-turns. Again, he needed an increased majority for the same reasons. Instead, those backbench rebels now have more power. There will have to be cross party consensus, or government will stagger and stumble. And on Brexit, even with the DUP on board, she is unlikely to have the support of those Scottish Tory MPs for a hard Brexit. I would not be surprsied if we do end up with another referendum, just on whether we stay in the single market or not.

[Alan Medic]

Staying in the single market means accepting FOM. Access to it is something else.

[JohnL]

1 Billion for NI for the DUP votes - 100K per vote.

This magic money tree is good :)

[uncleglen]

How do you know the scottish tories won't go for a hard brexit BB- this may explain why they attracted votes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11428014/Scots-losing-out-on-university-places-to-EU-students.html

[JoeLeg]

UG - it's a well accepted fact that the Tory SNP's capitalised of Sturgeons push for IndyRef2, for which there is very little stomach north of the border.

Regarding Brexit, I suspect Davidson and the rest of them are keeping those powder dry. She's an avid Remainer, but also a loyal Tory. She isn't going to start a fight with number ten unless she feels it's worth it and she can win.

Doesn't mean she won't though.

[rendelharris]

So the government is going to give Northern Ireland an extra ?1BN in exchange for the votes of ten DUP MPs. Given that the DUP garnered 292,316 votes in total, why didn't the Tories just give those voters ?3,812 each to vote for them? Is there a quantative difference?

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

But we've proved it again and again,

That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

For fear they should succumb and go astray;

So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

No matter how trifling the cost;

For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that plays it is lost!"

(from Rudyard Kipling, "Dane-geld")

[Earl Aelfheah]

Wrong and shameful

[Alan Medic]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 1 Billion for NI for the DUP votes - 100K per

> vote.

>

> This magic money tree is good :)

I've heard it referred to more than once though I can't remember it name. Is it not the case that money dished out to the regions is done based on some formula? Meaning if NI gets so much Wales, Scotland and maybe one or other areas have to get a payout too and in each case larger than what NI gets.