UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[TheSaint250]

Let's say the Tories lose just barely (by 10-20 seats, for example).  If they agreed to form a coalition, who would they form it with? 

I would assume the Lib Dems learned from their 2015 slandering and won't side with the Tories, so would that leave Northern Irish parties like DUP and UUP?

[thumb21]

Their model appears to be a waste of time. Copeland is shown as lean Labour. Even if we are optimistic for Labour and the results are 38 - 42, Copeland as a by-election gain for a ruling party going back to Labour would be massive...and probably unrealistic. Unless someone has more information on this than I?

[thumb21]

Let's say the Tories lose just barely (by 10-20 seats, for example).  If they agreed to form a coalition, who would they form it with? 

I would assume the Lib Dems learned from their 2015 slandering and won't side with the Tories, so would that leave Northern Irish parties like DUP and UUP?

Probably then just a Conservative - Unionist minority coalition or a Conservative minority govt with Unionist support in that case.

I don't see any other alternative unless maybe UKIP does better than expected, but that would come mostly at the Conservatives' expense anyway and it's extremely unlikely. If there is a hung parliament, there is definitely a chance that we could be having another election this year.

[TheSaint250]

Let's say the Tories lose just barely (by 10-20 seats, for example).  If they agreed to form a coalition, who would they form it with? 

I would assume the Lib Dems learned from their 2015 slandering and won't side with the Tories, so would that leave Northern Irish parties like DUP and UUP?

Probably then just a Conservative - Unionist minority coalition or a Conservative minority govt with Unionist support in that case.

I don't see any other alternative unless maybe UKIP does better than expected, but that would come mostly at the Conservatives' expense anyway and it's extremely unlikely. If there is a hung parliament, there is definitely a chance that we could be having another election this year.

please no lol

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am pretty sure, yougov is going to be an outlier.

anyway, landslide is over.

[Former President tack50]

Let's say the Tories lose just barely (by 10-20 seats, for example).  If they agreed to form a coalition, who would they form it with?  

I would assume the Lib Dems learned from their 2015 slandering and won't side with the Tories, so would that leave Northern Irish parties like DUP and UUP?

If that's the case then there are four options IMO:

A: If Con+Unionists+abstaining Sinn Fein MPs have a majority, there will be an extremely unstable Tory minority government

B: If the Lib Dems haven't learned from 2015, they'll support a Conservative government alongside the unionists. Not likely since Lib Dems and Conservatives are polar opposites in Brexit

C: If all else fails, there's the option of a full "Coalition of Chaos" (Labour+SNP+Plaid+Lib Dems+SDLP+abstaining Sinn Fein MPs).

D (most likely): A minority Tory government and shortly after it is formed there's a snap election (ie the Spanish scenario. No conclusive majorities so a second election is needed).

[Shadows]

Conservative           308
Labour                   261
Liberal Democrats    10
UKIP                             0
Green                     1
SNP                            47
Plaid Cymru             2

Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 311 Seats vs Tories 308 seats. Lab coalition becomes 321 (5 short) or Tory coalition becomes 318 (8 short) ! Corbyn is the likely PM with a grand coalition (potentially unstable - Don't see lasting 5 years) !

I don't buy the seat projection. I guess the young vote turnout on election day will determine it !

[Zinneke]

Let's say the Tories lose just barely (by 10-20 seats, for example).  If they agreed to form a coalition, who would they form it with?  

I would assume the Lib Dems learned from their 2015 slandering and won't side with the Tories, so would that leave Northern Irish parties like DUP and UUP?

If that's the case then there are four options IMO:

A: If Con+Unionists+abstaining Sinn Fein MPs have a majority, there will be an extremely unstable Tory minority government

B: If the Lib Dems haven't learned from 2015, they'll support a Conservative government alongside the unionists. Not likely since Lib Dems and Conservatives are polar opposites in Brexit

C: If all else fails, there's the option of a full "Coalition of Chaos" (Labour+SNP+Plaid+Lib Dems+SDLP+abstaining Sinn Fein MPs).

D (most likely): A minority Tory government and shortly after it is formed there's a snap election (ie the Spanish scenario. No conclusive majorities so a second election is needed).

I honestly think the Tories will have a short majority, but in the likelihood of a hung parliament i would love to see the LibDems actually joining in a kamikaze coalition (Charles Michel knows all about this) with them in order to push Soft Brexit and cause a civil war in the Tory party.

[parochial boy]

tbh, in the even of a small majority, the Tories will probably hold it together - they are generally quite good at having their furious tantrums behind closed doors. Can anyone imagine the Soubry/Clarke wing interrupting the Brexit talks in the way the "bästards" did with Maastricht? I can't really.

[Shadows]

BTW that nuclear question was so dumb. Iran doesn't have one & has never bombed or invaded/1st attacked a Western country in possibly centuries. They shirk direct confrontation & rather engage in proxy stuff. Even in Iran vs Iraq, Saddam gassed Iran, but Iran didn't retaliate with chemical weapons. North Korea can't get a ballistic missile right, it goes & falls into the ocean after a few miles, why are people hyping North Korea? They don't even have proper nukes, some crude bombs. And they haven't even attacked South Korea or Japan. It is ridiculous to think North Korea will fly a nuke half way around the globe through the Pacific & Americas or through entire Asia & Europe to reach Britain?

If you are attacked by a nuke, you have already failed, millions are dead, maimed with diseases spreading to children, large parts of Britain will be wiped off. And North Korea & Iran or whichever country does that will be wiped off the face of the earth by not just Britain but also NATO & they could do that even without Nukes.  

This lust for barbarism is ridiculous. People should be talking about how to achieve a de-nuclearized world in the long term, how to promote peace & resolve conflicts not blow up half the world. It doesn't take any intelligence, courage, hard-work or diplomacy to do that. Any1 can easily say, Hey I can cause severe devastation & kill millions.

[Zinneke]

BTW that nuclear question was so dumb. Iran doesn't have one & has never bombed or invaded/1st attacked a Western country in possibly centuries. They shirk direct confrontation & rather engage in proxy stuff. Even in Iran vs Iraq, Saddam gassed Iran, but Iran didn't retaliate with chemical weapons. North Korea can't get a ballistic missile right, it goes & falls into the ocean after a few miles, why are people hyping North Korea? They don't even have proper nukes, some crude bombs. And they haven't even attacked South Korea or Japan. It is ridiculous to think North Korea will fly a nuke half way around the globe through the Pacific & Americas or through entire Asia & Europe to reach Britain?

Even if Iran and DPRK do obtain nuclear weapons, the issue is that it increases the likelihood of more proliferation due to a nuclear arms race in the region, which in turn increases the likelihood of use.

Also, possessing nuclear weapons doesn't mean you will use them, but it does put you at a strategic advantage over non-nuclear powers, and increases your pay-offs in the likelihood of invasion of neighbouring countries, therefore increasing the likelihood of expansionist agendas. basic game theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue is not no nuclear weapons for me, as this just advantages those who do inevitably produce them again. The issue is restricting nuclear powers to countries with responsible, executive governments and no insane casus bellis on neighbouring countries. Already the U.S check and balances for nuclear armament is insanely low. Why Pakistan-India, Israel-Iran-Saud, DPRK-ROK etc should have nuclear weapons is beyond me. The French automatic system is the best.

Other than that, I agree with all your points. Its a silly, warmongering question. I don't understand why it has been revived as an issue in UK politics. Maybe to associate Corbyn with Michael Foot.

[Shadows]

BTW that nuclear question was so dumb. Iran doesn't have one & has never bombed or invaded/1st attacked a Western country in possibly centuries. They shirk direct confrontation & rather engage in proxy stuff. Even in Iran vs Iraq, Saddam gassed Iran, but Iran didn't retaliate with chemical weapons. North Korea can't get a ballistic missile right, it goes & falls into the ocean after a few miles, why are people hyping North Korea? They don't even have proper nukes, some crude bombs. And they haven't even attacked South Korea or Japan. It is ridiculous to think North Korea will fly a nuke half way around the globe through the Pacific & Americas or through entire Asia & Europe to reach Britain?

Even if Iran and DPRK do obtain nuclear weapons, the issue is that it increases the likelihood of more proliferation due to a nuclear arms race in the region, which in turn increases the likelihood of use.

Also, possessing nuclear weapons doesn't mean you will use them, but it does put you at a strategic advantage over non-nuclear powers, and increases your pay-offs in the likelihood of invasion of neighbouring countries, therefore increasing the likelihood of expansionist agendas. basic game theory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The issue is not no nuclear weapons for me, as this just advantages those who do inevitably produce them again. The issue is restricting nuclear powers to countries with responsible, executive governments and no insane casus bellis on neighbouring countries. Already the U.S check and balances for nuclear armament is insanely low. Why Pakistan-India, Israel-Iran-Saud, DPRK-ROK etc should have nuclear weapons is beyond me. The French automatic system is the best.

Other than that, I agree with all your points. Its a silly, warmongering question. I don't understand why it has been revived as an issue in UK politics. Maybe to associate Corbyn with Michael Foot.

I don't disagree with most of you. But who decides who will have nuclear weapons? In an arbitrary manner, the 5 Security Council members for it & shut the doors for everyone else. Then US shares it with NATO allies in Europe covering many more countries from Germany to Netherlands & so on. Then you Israel with a secret Nuclear weapons program.

No1 will accept the leadership of any1 & no1 will accept 4 or 5 countries as custodians of the world (especially US or UK which has bombed the sh*t out of places, caused coups). UK has colonized half the world & butchered people to maintain it. Even in the 60's, UK & US overthrew & got a secular democratic President in Mossadegh killed only because their oil interests were threatened. By that logic, US & UK should have literally no right to have nuclear weapons.

The full issue here is a deterrent which I fully understand, it gives a strategic advantage & a potential threat, although chances of usage are none. The goal has to be 0 Nuclear weapons in the next few decades, that was what everything was about to slowly cut down on the number of weapons (through joint deals) & create a non-nuclear world with some UN body inspection !

[jaichind]

Opinium poll

CON     43 (-2)
LAB      37 (+2)
LIB        6 (-1)
UKIP     5
Green   2

[Zinneke]

I don't disagree with most of you. But who decides who will have nuclear weapons? In an arbitrary manner, the 5 Security Council members for it & shut the doors for everyone else. Then US shares it with NATO allies in Europe covering many more countries from Germany to Netherlands & so on. Then you Israel with a secret Nuclear weapons program.

The 5 security council members + the G4 that hopefully succeed in obtaining permanent status, yes. These are leading security and economic actors who simply have to be recognised as world leaders on world issues. And nuclear proliferation is a world issue. Its the least worst option.

Israel´s stance is actually what encourages paranoia and thus the pursuit of a nuclear armed Iran. So its to be deplored for sure. But we all know why Israel gets away with having a nuclear arsenal : Uncle Sam.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Its precisely their responsibility in History that makes them inclined to make more rational judgements in this regard. But I am not suggesting the US or the UK have a god-given right to be hegemonic powers when it comes to nuclear weapons, far from it. I just think its inevitable that two SC powers with nuclear weapons will have to be at the table on nuclear proliferation issues, and that they are right in opposing others from having them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fully agree with this, I just think non-proliferation should come first, then we can talk about UN overarching legislation. Unfortunately I am a pessimist and I think it will take a nuclear event, however far that may be in the future, to create such a body. So in the mean time we need to rely on the current nuclear powers + more normative powers like Germany and Japan to control it. And that also means holding on to their nuclear weapons.

[ApatheticAustrian]

well, there IS a pro-labour swing.....

just asking....none of this is helping labour in scotland in any way, eh?

[rob in cal]

  I forget what the numbers are of people voting by mail usually is. Also, by this time, with less than a week to go how many of them have likely already voted?

[Silent Hunter]

  I forget what the numbers are of people voting by mail usually is. Also, by this time, with less than a week to go how many of them have likely already voted?

I think it's c.20%

[Silent Hunter]

Latest ComRes poll: Conservatives still +12

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Latest ComRes poll: Conservatives still +12

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 47% (+1)
LAB: 35% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
GRN: 1% (-)
(via @ComRes) Fieldwork: 31 May - 02 June.

So, no SNP?

[ApatheticAustrian]

Latest ComRes poll: Conservatives still +12

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 47% (+1)
LAB: 35% (+1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 4% (-)
GRN: 1% (-)
(via @ComRes) Fieldwork: 31 May - 02 June.

So, no SNP?

snp is usually not included in those polls.

[King of Kensington]

The Economist isn't happy with either, lamenting the weakness of the liberal cosmopolitan center.  They predictably attack Corbyn for being "loony left" but are quite scathing toward Theresa May too:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21722855-leaders-both-main-parties-have-turned-away-decades-old-vision-open-liberal?fsrc=scn%2Fpn%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2F

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am soooo going to hate the caucus of hyporcrites, who are going to praise may for her small victory as the "reasonable" candidate and a sign, that britan rejects extremism, or something.

[IceAgeComing]

just asking....none of this is helping labour in scotland in any way, eh?

They went up in the ICM from a few days back; there are two more due over the weekend as well

[Angel of Death]

Theresa May's decision to invoke Article 50 before calling an election must have been the biggest blunder in her political career so far: Not only is it unnecessarily wasting precious negotiation time during the withdrawal timer, but by making Brexit truly irrevocable, it also made a moot point of whatever suspicions (justified or not) the electorate might have had about whether Labour would have made the commitment themselves, which would surely have been a campaign issue otherwise.

[Blair]

Theresa May's decision to invoke Article 50 before calling an election must have been the biggest blunder in her political career so far: Not only is it unnecessarily wasting precious negotiation time during the withdrawal timer, but by making Brexit truly irrevocable, it also made a moot point of whatever suspicions (justified or not) the electorate might have had about whether Labour would have made the commitment themselves, which would surely have been a campaign issue otherwise.

I mean even Labour would implement Brexit because we're so scared of facing Scotland .2