Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July

[Scrutinize]

The media against the tories next election? I'll believe it when I see it.

They went against them pretty hard during the Blair years.

At best, it will be focused on the DUP but impact Tories by association.

 

[Secret_Window]

He's not been vague on immigration though and you can't have single market access without freedom of movement ergo they can't have it... to argue otherwise is simply delusional.

No he has been vague on the Brexit deal I meant, and saying he wants to end freedom of movement deliberately to win over UKIP voters. I don't necessarily believe that is what they will do though, especially as it contradicts the type of market access he wants.

 

[h4rm0ny]

You must be under 7 years old or not had access to a television for the past 25 years.

You can both be right. The press has sided with Labour before, but a Blairite I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Tory Labour. They wont as long as Corbyn is at the helm.

 

[dowie]

No he has been vague on the Brexit deal I meant, and saying he wants to end freedom of movement deliberately to win over UKIP voters. I don't necessarily believe that is what they will do though, especially as it contradicts the type of market access he wants.

He's stated it quite clearly... you can't just make a baseless claim that he wants to do the opposite because the facts get in the way. He's been vague on Brexit in general yes, he's not been vague in stating that he'd control immigration too.

It is quite simple, you can't have single market access and control immigration, both of the main parties have pledged to do so. Neither main party can therefore have single market access.

 

[StriderX]

He's stated it quite clearly... you can't just make a baseless claim that he wants to do the opposite because the facts get in the way. He's been vague on Brexit in general yes, he's not been vague in stating that he'd control immigration too.

It is quite simple, you can't have single market access and control immigration, both of the main parties have pledged to do so. Neither main party can therefore have single market access - this is really really basic and you're absolutely dreaming if you think otherwise.

Doesn't matter now, Corbyn doesn't have the threat of having to have freedom of movement via DUP or Scottish conservatives or rebels in their party, Labour can just sit there in glee. While also secretly (I assume) getting what they want.

 

[dalehitchy1]

You can both be right. The press has sided with Labour before, but a Blairite I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Tory Labour. They wont as long as Corbyn is at the helm.

I know the media went against the tories during the Blair years I'm not dumb. But they went against the Tories with a labour candidate that was essentially a tory.

They will only ever support a labour candidate when it is a clone of the tories.

That's why they will slated corbyn more then any person I've remember.

 

[Burnsy2023]

He's stated it quite clearly... you can't just make a baseless claim that he wants to do the opposite because the facts get in the way. He's been vague on Brexit in general yes, he's not been vague in stating that he'd control immigration too.

It is quite simple, you can't have single market access and control immigration, both of the main parties have pledged to do so. Neither main party can therefore have single market access.

Labour have said they want both single market access and want to control immigration. What takes priority and what both of those mean exactly is not clear.

 

[stewski]

He's stated it quite clearly... you can't just make a baseless claim that he wants to do the opposite because the facts get in the way. He's been vague on Brexit in general yes, he's not been vague in stating that he'd control immigration too.

It is quite simple, you can't have single market access and control immigration, both of the main parties have pledged to do so. Neither main party can therefore have single market access.

Is that the case for Norway?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

About the only acceptable candidate is Hammond, will they pick him. Probably not.

Oh I would vote for him, "government by excel"

 

[Angilion]

some of the young might think that May was far from great but the only alternative was Corbyn... Who has a long, long track record of being generally anti establishment so could rightfully be approached with large swathes of skepticism with regards to how he would approach important issues such as:-

[..]

police/ security forces (repeadtely opposed terrorism bills, showed clear antipathy towards police in the past, clearly, showed sympathies to terrorist organisations with aims completely against the UK establishment and often ones with appaling approaches to human rights)

[..]

While I generally agree with your post (although I think May is worse overall), I think the part I quoted is rather shaky.

1) "Terrorism bills" haven't usually been terrorism bills. They're been authoritarian bills passed off as terrorism bills. Ive been opposed to them. Most people who understand them have been opposed to them. Many security experts have been opposed to them, including some people from official anti-terrorism authorities (MIx, etc) who think they reduce security and freedom.

2) May is seeking to bring power to a party that showed sympathies to terrorist organisations and which very likely includes ex-terrorists.

3) Corbyn showed clear antipathy towards police in the past. May has weakened and continues to further weaken the police in the present, while Corbyn promises to strengthen the police.

4) May deals directly with entire countries that have appalling approaches to human rights (not her fault - it's been UK policy for ages) and is publically and fervently committed to ending the entire concept of human rights.

On those points, May is clearly much worse than Corbyn.

 

[Secret_Window]

He's stated it quite clearly... you can't just make a baseless claim that he wants to do the opposite because the facts get in the way. He's been vague on Brexit in general yes, he's not been vague in stating that he'd control immigration too.

It is quite simple, you can't have single market access and control immigration, both of the main parties have pledged to do so. Neither main party can therefore have single market access - this is really really basic and you're absolutely dreaming if you think otherwise.

I am actually agreeing with you, I don't know why you are being antagonistic. I am saying he is being vague on the Brexit deal, which contradicts the end for freedom of movement, as you can't have both. By vague I mean, his manifesto states "strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain." but does not explain how he ends freedom of movement...Which is why I said I think he has said the end for freedom of movement to cater for UKIP voters.

 

[a1ex2001]

You missed semi hard

sums up the stupidity nicely!

 

[Robbo]

So May has thrown her advisors under the bus.

Shame she won't be following them.

 

[Cosimo]

So May has thrown her advisors under the bus.

Shame she won't be following them.

Don't get too upset as she'll get her reward in the coming months.

 

[Caged]

I doubt it will take months

 

[dowie]

I am actually agreeing with you, I don't know why you are being antagonistic. I am saying he is being vague on the Brexit deal, which contradicts the end for freedom of movement, as you can't have both. By vague I mean, his manifesto states "strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain." but does not explain how he ends freedom of movement...Which is why I said I think he has said the end for freedom of movement to cater for UKIP voters.

His manifesto doesn't state that he will maintain membership of the single market... he wants to retain some of the benefits of it. The point is... which I've already pointed out he also wants to control immigration ergo he can't have single market access. Neither party can have single market access, this isn't being antagonistic this is pointing out a simple fact of EU membership. He might want to emulate as much of that single market access as possible but he can't have full access and would have to compromise just like the tories would. Hardly something just aimed at UKIP voters, 52% voted for Brexit, plenty of them are Labour voters.

 

[Rilot]

I give it a month before she's ousted.

 

[StriderX]

I give it a month before she's ousted.

I give it a week and a bit, just enough to open parliament to see what happens.

 

[dowie]

Labour have said they want both single market access and want to control immigration. What takes priority and what both of those mean exactly is not clear.

No they haven't said that if you read carefully they're not pledging single market access... I don't know why people are under the false impression that they are. You can't control immigration and have access to the single market - the EU is absolutely clear on this.

 

[Angilion]

This writer has a way with words for political pieces:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ility-shouldnt-gloat-mark-steel-a7781426.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ility-shouldnt-gloat-mark-steel-a7781426.html

The Tories have been insistent on staying stable. And there can be no more stable way of running a country than calling a referendum to settle an issue, losing it, the leader of that country resigning, his schoolmate rival trying to take over but being usurped by his colleague who, in turn, is pushed out by another rival, who is adamant she won’t have an election, so she calls an election as she’s guaranteed to win a majority of 200 – but then loses the majority altogether, so her own side start calling for her to resign as well.