[Vicky.]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7782581.html

Jeremy Corbyn was just 2,227 votes away from having the chance to become Prime Minister in the general election, an analysis of marginal seats has revealed.

If the Labour leader had won seven seats narrowly taken by the Conservatives, he would have had the opportunity to form a “progressive alliance” with all other smaller parties, barring the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Although Mr Corbyn was only 2,227 votes from having the opportunity to form a coalition government, Ms May’s Conservatives were only 287 votes from being able to form a working majority.

Had the Conservatives seized four seats from Labour – Dudley North (22 majority); Newcastle-under-Lyme (30 majority); Crew and Nantwich (48 majority); and Canterbury (187 majority) – Ms May would have been able to form a government without support from the Democratic Unionist Party, which won 10 seats.

**** me. Extremely close. Every vote really did count

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7782581.html





**** me. Extremely close. Every vote really did count

I was going to vote for her but didn't in the end because of the fox hunting issue,I bet a few felt like that,the silly woman, we don't even know what she will do about that.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I was going to vote for her but didn't in the end because of the fox hunting issue,I bet a few felt like that,the silly woman, we don't even know what she will do about that.

Yup. She threw it away herself. She should have walked it but ran the worst campaign I have ever seen. At times it really did seem like she wanted to lose. I still don't know if it was on purpose or if she genuinely is just arrogant and assumed she would walk it regardless.

Uncosted manifesto, constant u-turns, refusing to say what she classes as a 'wealthy pensioner' for the means testing of benefits. No cap on social care proposals...refusal to do TV appearances. Inability to answer any question about her own policies without mentioning Corbyns name. Refusal to answer questions from normal people on the few tv appearances she did actually do. Fox hunting, ivory, just bonkers really.

The means testing pensioner benefits and social care 'dementia tax' I agreed with from the Tory manifesto too (in principle..obviously my support depends on figures. If she was going to say 5k per year or something ridiculous for the benefits thing then nope). Those were the two that seemed to enrage everyone else

I just cannot believe how close this actually was. When people say every vote counts, I always think that it doesn't make much difference really..but this time it really would have.

I do wonder quite how much sway the media has in this too. With numbers being so close. Could have had a very different result if not for the media onslaught.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yup. She threw it away herself. She should have walked it but ran the worst campaign I have ever seen. At times it really did seem like she wanted to lose. I still don't know if it was on purpose or if she genuinely is just arrogant and assumed she would walk it regardless.

Uncosted manifesto, constant u-turns, refusing to say what she classes as a 'wealthy pensioner' for the means testing of benefits. No cap on social care proposals...refusal to do TV appearances. Inability to answer any question about her own policies without mentioning Corbyns name. Refusal to answer questions from normal people on the few tv appearances she did actually do. Fox hunting, ivory, just bonkers really.

The means testing pensioner benefits and social care 'dementia tax' I agreed with from the Tory manifesto too (in principle..obviously my support depends on figures. If she was going to say 5k per year or something ridiculous for the benefits thing then nope). Those were the two that seemed to enrage everyone else

I just cannot believe how close this actually was. When people say every vote counts, I always think that it doesn't make much difference really..but this time it really would have.

I do wonder quite how much sway the media has in this too. With numbers being so close. Could have had a very different result if not for the media onslaught.

She did Vicky,I also thought at one point she wanted to throw the towel in,i just can't understand why she didn't explain things properly,but what is done is done I suppose,lets hope she can get her mojo back,although I always preferred Cameron.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

She did Vicky,I also thought at one point she wanted to throw the towel in,i just can't understand why she didn't explain things properly,but what is done is done I suppose,lets hope she can get her mojo back,although I always preferred Cameron.

I don't think she ever had a mojo to lose tbh. Always seemed very wooden, pretty unlikeable, definitely does come across as arrogant. I disagreed with Cameron on pretty much everything but he was (IMO) a decent PM, and he actually seemed human rather than robotic. Yes he scarpered when things didn't go his way but up until then, I did actually 'like' him as much as I can like a Tory

I hope the Conservatives can find someone decent to replace her. There is no doubt that its coming. Maybe not right now, but they will. I predict after Brexit deals are done.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think she ever had a mojo to lose tbh. Always seemed very wooden, pretty unlikeable, definitely does come across as arrogant. I disagreed with Cameron on pretty much everything but he was (IMO) a decent PM, and he actually seemed human rather than robotic. Yes he scarpered when things didn't go his way but up until then, I did actually 'like' him as much as I can like a Tory

I hope the Conservatives can find someone decent to replace her. There is no doubt that its coming. Maybe not right now, but they will. I predict after Brexit deals are done.

I agree,i didn't know a lot about her tbh,they need a good leader now,someone with some clout and not averse to debating .

Spoiler:

Cameron was my political crush,lol

[Denver]

Up the voting age to 21

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Up the voting age to 21

Lower it to 16, would be more fair

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Up the voting age to 21

Pressed people want to better their future by not having Tories?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I was going to vote for her but didn't in the end because of the fox hunting issue,I bet a few felt like that,the silly woman, we don't even know what she will do about that.

Nothing personal but that really annoys me, fox hunting would NOT get past the Commons vote, it could pretty much be ignored on the manifesto.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Lower it to 16, would be more fair

If the age were to change, it should go up. People's brains aren't fully developed until about 25, so making decisions which can effectively wreck the country should be left to those more suited to thinking it through.

[Jack_]

The extent of Labour's success in this election really cannot be understated. Yes, they didn't win, but nobody ever thought that was a possibility - indeed no one ever thought they'd be strengthened in opposition. Makes you laugh to consider how poorly Owen Smith would've fared.

But anyway, they were 800,000 votes behind the Tories in total. That is remarkable. It's only because of our ridiculous electoral system that it's meaningless. They are up 3m votes from 2015. A 10% increase in vote share. And, crucially, they've just created a multitude of wafer-thin marginals:

Spoiler:

[/url]

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/bat...targets/labour

22 seats with majorities sub 1000 votes would put them in minority government territory. The 64 seats required for a majority of two are all sub 4000 majorities.

In fairness, the Tories list of marginals isn't too shabby either (and certainly their vote share is also striking), but with a floundering Conservative administration and a strengthened Labour party in opposition, and a mobilised membership, I've never been more optimistic than I am right now.

Why a Labour majority at the next election has become far easier

Jeremy Corbyn turned safe Conservative seats into marginals, leaving his party needing a swing of just 3.6 per cent next time.

After May 2015, Labour appeared so far from power that many supporters conceded the next election in advance. The party was 99 seats behind the Conservatives (331-232), it had been wiped out in Scotland and boundary changes loomed. Such was the scale of Labour’s defeat that to achieve a majority of one it required a swing of 8.75 per cent across the UK. Not only had the party lost seats, it had gone backwards in those it needed to win.

But Labour’s 2017 result, which saw it achieve its biggest improvement in vote share since 1945 (from 30.4 per cent to 40.0 per cent) has dramatically reshaped the electoral map in its favour. My analysis, the first to be published, shows that a majority at the next election, whether it comes this year or in 2022, is now within Labour’s reach. As well as gaining 30 MPs (from Canterbury to Kensington), Jeremy Corbyn improved the party’s performance elsewhere, turning safe Conservative seats into marginals.

To achieve a majority of one (326), Labour now needs a modest swing of 3.57 per cent. To become the largest party it needs to win 34 seats (24 from the Conservatives, nine from the SNP and one from Plaid Cymru), requiring a swing of just 1.63 per cent, or 29 directly off the Tories (requiring a swing of 2.01 per cent). The winning post in the latter case is Ed Balls’s former constituency of Morley and Outwood (Tory majority: 2,104). The seat needed for a majority of one is the SNP-held East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (majority: 3,866).

The party’s nascent recovery in Scotland, where it went from one MP to seven, has made an overall victory far more plausible. Of Labour’s 64 target seats, 18 are SNP-held. The remainder are held by the Conservatives, with the exception of Plaid Cymru’s Arfon. Vulnerable Tories include Home Secretary Amber Rudd in Hastings (majority: 346), Anna Soubry in Broxtowe (majority: 863) and Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green (majority: 2,438). Though they long to be rid of Theresa May, such stats explain why the Conservatives are desperate to avoid another election.

May’s squandering of the Conservatives’ majority also means they will struggle to pass the planned boundary changes. The party’s traditional divisions on Europe are resurfacing in a new form as hard and soft Brexiteers clash. Unless the next Conservative leader breaks with austerity, the party will struggle to win as living standards further decline (though it is hard to imagine a worse Tory election campaign).

A hung parliament came as a surprise to most in Labour (including Corbyn allies) but at the next election the party can sets its sights higher. A potential majority coalition of socialists, liberal Remainers and conservative interventionists is emerging. Far from being condemned to the wilderness, Labour is within reach of government once more.

New Statesman

[JTM45]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If the age were to change, it should go up. People's brains aren't fully developed until about 25, so making decisions which can effectively wreck the country should be left to those more suited to thinking it through.

So people can be old enough to go and die for their country and pay taxes but aren't capable of ''thinking it through'' enough to vote on the conditions they live under! Absolute bull****.

The only people advocating **** like this are Tories who are butt-hurt that Corbyn spent the time to connect with the youth of the country and it spolit the Maybot's chances and showed her up for the moronic, non-caring asshole that she is.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If the age were to change, it should go up. People's brains aren't fully developed until about 25, so making decisions which can effectively wreck the country should be left to those more suited to thinking it through.

Completely agree - 16 is too young - they would not be making informed decisions and would probably treat it as some kind of game. It could be very damaging to politics.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by JTM45

So people can be old enough to go and die for their country and pay taxes but aren't capable of ''thinking it through'' enough to vote on the conditions they live under! Absolute bull****.

The only people advocating **** like this are Tories who are butt-hurt that Corbyn spent the time to connect with the youth of the country and it spolit the Maybot's chances and showed her up for the moronic, non-caring asshole that she is.

Connect - is that another word for use and manipulate now.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The extent of Labour's success in this election really cannot be understated. Yes, they didn't win, but nobody ever thought that was a possibility - indeed no one ever thought they'd be strengthened in opposition. Makes you laugh to consider how poorly Owen Smith would've fared.

But anyway, they were 800,000 votes behind the Tories in total. That is remarkable. It's only because of our ridiculous electoral system that it's meaningless. They are up 3m votes from 2015. A 10% increase in vote share. And, crucially, they've just created a multitude of wafer-thin marginals:

Spoiler:

[/url]

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/bat...targets/labour

22 seats with majorities sub 1000 votes would put them in minority government territory. The 64 seats required for a majority of two are all sub 4000 majorities.

In fairness, the Tories list of marginals isn't too shabby either (and certainly their vote share is also striking), but with a floundering Conservative administration and a strengthened Labour party in opposition, and a mobilised membership, I've never been more optimistic than I am right now.



New Statesman

The system is the system - I always find it a bit pathetic how the losers always try to blame the system.

[JTM45]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Connect - is that another word for use and manipulate now.

'Connect' and 'manipulate' are (if you really need someone to explain it to you) two very different words with very different meanings.

Corbyn went out all across the Country and met and talked with young people, answered any questions they had while just showing that he actually cared at the same time. That's 'connecting' with young people.

Theresa May announced a snap election, told everyone she was ''strong and stable'' and the only way forward, hid and then sat back and waited for her landslide victory. As we now know that didn't work out for her.
What she tried to do was clearly 'manipulation'.

As i was saying, two very different words.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by JTM45

'Connect' and 'manipulate' are (if you really need someone to explain it to you) two very different words with very different meanings.

Corbyn went out all across the Country and met and talked with young people, answered any questions they had while just showing that he actually cared at the same time. That's 'connecting' with young people.

Theresa May announced a snap election, told everyone she was ''strong and stable'' and the only way forward, hid and then sat back and waited for her landslide victory. As we now know that didn't work out for her.
What she tried to do was clearly 'manipulation'.

As i was saying, two very different words.

He was pandering to the young as he was after their votes. You can dress it up all you like but he knew what he was doing and it paid off, although not quite enough. Words are easy - until they have become actions they mean very little.

All politians do it at every election - many youngsters probably don't really get that as they have never actually lived it. The false promises, they are part of the 'game'.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Nothing personal but that really annoys me, fox hunting would NOT get past the Commons vote, it could pretty much be ignored on the manifesto.

I know Oliver,in hindsight it's annoyed me too

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If the age were to change, it should go up. People's brains aren't fully developed until about 25, so making decisions which can effectively wreck the country should be left to those more suited to thinking it through.

If you want to go down that route - the brain doesn't simply reach a plateau and stay there. It peaks in the 20's and then starts to decline. By age 45 the brain, including reasoning and memory function, is already in decline compared to the late 20's. The average 65 year old has nowhere NEAR the same reasoning function as the average 18 year old.

Shall we start voting at 25 and then stop at 45 maybe?

Then, of course, you have the fact that some people simply never develop effective reasoning abilities or skills at any age. Will we have a test?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Completely agree - 16 is too young - they would not be making informed decisions and would probably treat it as some kind of game. It could be very damaging to politics.

People of all ages do this though. I don't understand this argument that all adults reach a certain age, and suddenly become mature and politically informed. It just isn't true. Try having a political discussion with my mother in law .

If you lowered the voting age, I think you'd have two types of young voters. The ones who ARE informed and interested and would make the effort to vote, and the ones who would be dragged along by their parents to vote along family lines. The latter type would encompass all parties and so likely cancel itself out.

That said - I personally think the voting age is fine at 18.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

People of all ages do this though. I don't understand this argument that all adults reach a certain age, and suddenly become mature and politically informed. It just isn't true. Try having a political discussion with my mother in law .

If you lowered the voting age, I think you'd have two types of young voters. The ones who ARE informed and interested and would make the effort to vote, and the ones who would be dragged along by their parents to vote along family lines. The latter type would encompass all parties and so likely cancel itself out.

That said - I personally think the voting age is fine at 18.

Take my mother in law.... Please.

TS dragging us back to the 70s

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Nothing personal but that really annoys me, fox hunting would NOT get past the Commons vote, it could pretty much be ignored on the manifesto.

If it's such a non-issue then May needs to stop bringing it back up

[Tom4784]

Theresa May ran the worst campaign I've ever seen. She never answered a single question directly and only spoke in vague terms (easier to backtrack on) and she ultimately relied on the relentless character assassination and the hopes that most people were too ignorant to look at the facts and treated the tabloids as gospel, after all she was the 'hero of the people' and he was the evil little terrorist sympathiser that wanted peace instead of indulging in the wanton bloodlust of the public.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by reece(:

If it's such a non-issue then May needs to stop bringing it back up

Anyone can bring up anything they like, but it wouldn't get through a Commons vote.