Westministenders: Election Mayhem

[RedToothBrush]

Tick tock, tick tock goes the Brexit Clock.

Don’t panic, just don’t turn up to debates because you have talks starting on the 19th June and have to perfect the 100 page document relating to at least 750 international agreements that need renegotiating before then. Anyone who turns up for their job interview for that, is just wasting time.

If only someone hadn’t called a distracting election.

This election was dubbed to be about Brexit. Yet it is remarkable that we have barely had debate over it. No one wants to admit it really. We nearly got a consensus between Barry Gardiner, Nick Clegg and David Davis over it being a political not economic decision on Question Time on Thursday 1st June, but we are not quite there yet with the admission that the economy is toast. This means the addition money the Conservatives have promised for the NHS won’t be available but we can’t have this discussion. Its properly the fault of purdah. Instead the subject rapidly got skipped over. Instead Davis said that the target May had just set for immigration to be at tens of thousands by 2022 was unrealistic.

In post-election rumour has it that Davis is about to get a promotion to the FCO, whilst Johnson gets the boot. On the other hand Gove is also rumoured for NI and May loyal Gummer gets Brexit.

Meanwhile the 1922 Committee of Tory Backbenchers are said to be plotting the downfall of at least one of May’s guard dogs, Nick Timothy following the decision about the Dementia Tax and subsequent U-Turn. Farage also mentioned Timothy in his statement over the breaking news that the CPS are pressing charges on the Conservative Candidate for South Thanet (the former MP there), his agent and a Tory Party official over election expenses. It seems almost inconceivable that Timothy can survive a traditional Tory Knifing.

This is all as May’s leadership approval ratings are in freefall as the honeymoon is firmly ends, after the public finally got to see her create an army of strawmen as answers, in a barely concealed contempt for the public’s concerns. May’s reaction to a negative reaction? Go back into hiding from media accountability and get the Mail to do her dirty work.

Elsewhere the EU have lined up to criticise Trump over his hard ball attempt to renegotiate the Paris Climate Deal. May was noticeable by her absence as she’s trying the same trick over Brexit and is desperate to keep Trump onside. What is Trump offering us in return? Apart from a Brexit Opportunity to get stiffed.

As for the polls? Despite them, it’s difficult to see the Tories not making a net seat gain. For Labour to do well it relies on widespread tactical voting, young who haven’t previously voted turning out in levels not seen since the 1970s and this being spread across the country and not concentrated in University areas. This will be tough to achieve to simply stop a Tory Landslide, never mind a hung parliament. Labour winning a majority is the stuff of pure fantasy (needs Lab to be 12points ahead of Cons). That said, if the result isn’t much different to the 2015 result, it will beg major questions over May’s leadership and her ability to read the public mood. It will say something about her refusal to engage with ‘the saboteurs’.

Expect an increased Tory Majority but not of the epic scale of 470 they originally were aiming for.

Elements I feel like you - sort of preparing for the worst but hoping for the best.

I can not see the Conservatives getting below 353 .
Thought as much. Depressing, but thanks for the stats, red.
Ruthlessness wins elections. Frees up my evening on Thursday.
Will be researching sunshiny democracies for spending the next decade.

But even if libdem win your seat they, realistically, won't get power.

So if you want brexit to be one way but you vote for libdem you are essentially wasting it (on the subject of brexit anyway)

For example - you really want to guarantee the rights of with migrants and keep tariff free access.

You know libdem would do it but they won't ever have a working majority (in this election at least)

So a vote for libdem, if it's a choice between them and labour in your seat, would just be one taken away from labour iyswim.

That was my friends thinking anyway.

Greg Knight is the drummer in MP4 who are/were all MPs. They were the non famous musicians behind the Jo Cox fundraising song. He's got a very good reputation as a drummer.
Sadly he's a Tory brexiteer though.

Caught Boris on BBC brekkie this morning. Charlie was reading him his own quotes as London mayor abut culling the police force. Basically all boiled down to sound bites and don't judge us on our words and actions but make sure you just Corbyn on his.

David Allen Green has retweeted this from 4th May. I think it should be repeated now as it somehow seems appropriate. No wonder the public don't think Human Rights are a good thing. Its because its fuelled by inadequate politicians who want to keep their press barons happy:

David Allen Green‏*@davidallengreen*

1. Here is the tale of Theresa and Abu.
2. Once upon a time Theresa was Home Secretary.

One day she had to deal with a request from Jordan for Abu's deportation.

1. She was not the first Home Secretary to have to deal with this request. But there was a problem.
2. The was the prospect that the evidence to be used against Abu in Jordan had been obtained by torture.
3. And if so, it was not lawfully open to the UK under ECHR to deport anybody if there was prospect of torture-gained evidence being used.
4. So what did Theresa do?

She huffed and puffed at the courts, spending huge amounts of public money.

1. Click here www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/277.html and see how many QCs she instructed for one appeal.

One QC. Two QCs. Three QCs. Yes, three QCs.

1. Those in the media who rail against "fat cat lawyers" didn't mind the government instructing three QCs at public expense, in this case.
2. But Theresa still lost that case. She lost every appeal, however much taxpayers' money she threw at the case.

10. And the reason she lost was, well, because torture is absolutely wrong, and no one should be deported to face torture-based evidence. 11. Having lost in her attempt at shouting at the courts, Theresa tried a new tactic. She shouted at Europe. 12. It was seriously suggested that the UK "temporarily" leave the ECHR - see www.theguardian.com/law/2013/apr/24/european-rights-convention-abu-qatada 13. This idea did not get far, because it was laughed at by a Lord Chancellor called Kenneth. 14. But Theresa had got the tabloids in a frenzy at this case - she had shouted at the courts and at Europe, but none of it had worked. 15. And so Theresa quietly did a sensible deal with Jordan where they agreed never to use torture-based evidence. 16. You would say this was a Good Thing, as it meant there would be no torture-based evidence used in Jordan again. 17. But Theresa did not want to talk about it. Instead she made out she had deported him "despite" ECHR rather than in compliance with it. 18. So despite huffing and puffing and exciting the tabloids and threatening suspension and appealing, she did what the ECHR required anyway 19. Theresa ended up doing a sensible deal on Abu, contrary to the expectations and demands of the press, but then pretended she hadn't. 20. In turn, Abu in Jordan was cleared, as the supposed serious (torture-based) evidence against him was no longer admissible. 21. And Theresa got another job where she shouted at courts and at Europe, getting press into a frenzy, and then she.... (to be continued).

LurkingHusband had some other theories about how elections have been and are organised. It's difficult not to wonder

@paulmasonnews
Postal votes missing in 2x critical marginals. Student votes wiped out. Council responsible is Tory-UKIP.

But even if libdem win your seat they, realistically, won't get power.
So if you want brexit to be one way but you vote for libdem you are essentially wasting it (on the subject of brexit anyway)
For example - you really want to guarantee the rights of with migrants and keep tariff free access.
You know libdem would do it but they won't ever have a working majority (in this election at least)
So a vote for libdem, if it's a choice between them and labour in your seat, would just be one taken away from labour iyswim.
That was my friends thinking anyway.

I totally disagree with this.

The LDs held the balance of power in 2010. They might be kicked repeatedly for what they did in supporting the Tories but the alternative would have been far worse. The option of a Lab-Lib coalition at that time was not viable as they were still short of a majority.

As it stands this time round, if the Cons did fail to get a majority, they still might not be able to form a government. This does not mean that Labour would form a coalition with anyone else, but they might get the support of other parties to form a minority government if they fall short of a majority.

In this scenario that LD seat becomes important in helping influence decisions.

The LDs are not going to cosy up to the CONs this time round in any circumstances because of 2010 and because they don't think that the CONs currently have enough common ground with them. Labour at least have some.

Also, the number of votes the LDs get at this election affects the amount of air time the centre gets for the next 5 years. It needs some or the political debate in this country will be pulled further to the left and right.

I'm sorry but I think the logic your friend has, merely displays a lack of understanding about politics.

Why are LDs choosing to vote tactically Red? Simple, because they are the most pragmatic voters. They realise that they are not going to win seats by themselves and think stopping the Tories more important. So they are backing who they think has the best chance of doing that.

In seats where its Lab v Lib with no chance of the Tories getting in, or the LDs are far ahead of Labour who have no chance of winning, then you'll see a different dynamic.

LurkingHusband had some other theories about how elections have been and are organised

Was that the one where we get voting centres secured by the national guard ?

(I may have just lost my grip on reality )

Wrt the internet, social media & more controls etc - I think sometimes people can get too bogged down with the proper techy stuff & the deeper parts of it wrt people who are already entrenched on the extremism road.

Simple, easy things can definitely be done to try and prevent people being suckered in and groomed in the initial stages before it gets to the point of dark web etc.

For example, on mainstream social media such as fb - their 'community guidelines' are clearly not fit for purpose.

Over the last few weeks I've reported numerous pages & posters/posts for using blatant hate speech - not the sort of lower level stuff that upsets the 'professionally offended' but real, blatantly disgusting hate speech & incitement - all but one were classed as 'not contravening community standards'.

This is the ever prevalent lower level stuff that engages the angry young men & gives them a 'gang' to latch onto - they then get into the echo chamber of apparently like-minded people & they try desperately to outdo each other in their bollocks.
It becomes entirely normalised to them to think/speak/act like disgusting animals.

It's not always about big grand plans & strategies, everything starts somewhere - every extremist (whatever colour, religion or creed) starts somewhere & it's not on the dark web or the really nasty extremist sites - it begins on generic, normal, everyday SM.

If the 'community standards' are massively lacking, or at absolute base level in any community (real life or virtual) then that community will always be a breeding ground for, and safe space for groomers & people with an agenda.

(Very rambly, sorry but I hope I got across what I mean properly).

Boris Johnson currently doing an interview which will be tweeted about a lot. Its a personal attack and questioning dodging fest by all accounts.

I think the bottom line is, people like things simplistic and are actually offended when offered real choices. All this constant thinking, about complex stuff with no easy answers, is just tedious, when you could choose to believe a simple red or blue fairy tale.

TheElements, yes, this is exactly it. People are worried and don't want to be reminded that things are complex.

Want an explanation for why LDs are forgetting about Remain?

This is a good one. Its about democratic accountability:

Simon Cox‏**@SimonFRCox**
Theresa May doesn't want informed public discussion of the crucial issues facing Britain 1/
Theresa May doesn't want Britain to be informed about Brexit

Thom Brooks‏ @thom_brooks
Leaked document shows ‘secret’ government studies into impact of ‘hard’ Brexit kept hidden by PM
www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/leaked-document-shows-secret-government-studies-impact-hard-brexit/07/04/

Simon Cox‏**@SimonFRCox**
Theresa May would rather British voters knew less about what Government does in their name
www.pressgazette.co.uk/government-is-more-secretive-under-theresa-may-with-department-for-exiting-eu-least-likely-to-answer-foi-requests/ 3/
If Theresa May wins a bigger majority, she'll claim a personal mandate of trust, authorising her to implement "the will of the people" 4/
If elected, Theresa May, with her tiny kitchen-cupboard cabinet, will continue her refusal to debate or discuss policy. 5/
This election started with Labour looking weak & divided. But now, it's the Tory party's unity that's most threatened by success, IMO 6/
Brexit sets the deep interests of British business & labour against the next Government's promise to voters. Expect permanent crisis. 7/
May has shown us how she will handle Brexit: with centralised, secretive power, flanked by a debate-denying demonising narrative 8/
Brexit will mean an unprecedented transfer of power from EU law & insts to Westminster. May seems unlikely to want to share 9/
If May wins, expect enormous pressure on our British constitution: Parliamentary procedures and judicial oversight of Government. 10/
If May wins big, Con majority could use "EU repeal" to give Ministers enormous boost in centralised power. Who will scrutinise it's use? 11/
EU repeal will be used to "cut red-tape" : not for individuals (we'll get more) but especially for business-government revolving door 12/

But even if libdem win your seat they, realistically, won't get power.

I totally disagree with this, and RTB has basically said what I think. We're in a totally bloody mess thanks to the inordinate concern for the views of a minority party, based on (their relatively small but significant) national vote share despite them never getting more than 1 MP. Briefly.

It seems this "there's no point voting for minority parties because they'll never count for anything" view only applies to, oh lemme think, the LibDems or the Greens .

Although I might agree with you that the oversimplified "it has to be red or blue" reasoning might explain the collapse of LibDem support even in strongly Remain, currently LibDem seats.

I still don't quite understand the exodus of Remainers to the two major parties either

I don't either. I wonder if it is because people are more bothered about the here and now? Cuts to the NHS are happening now and are visible. The same applies with education. The 'dementia tax' is in the manifesto.

Brexit is at the moment, the elephant in the room, but it won't happen for 21 months, so people can't quite get a grip on what it might mean.

I believe the Tory party is still built on the back of the landed gentry (and those that aspire to that niche), and historically, the landed gentry have despised trade and commerce ... after all, it's a little bit too close to having to work for a living.

Up until now, the sleight of hand was able to deceive the eye. But with Brexit I think we are getting a peek behind the veil. And all the nouveau riche johnny-come-lately "Mrs Thatcher is my idol" type "tories" are suddenly discovering that in 21st century Britain, you can't buy class.

I'm reminded of the scene in "Blackadder the Third" where Blackadder tries to convince an impoverished French nobleman to help him ...

Blackadder: Now listen here, Frou-frou. How would you like to earn some money ?"
Comte de Frou-frou: No.
Blackadder: (surprised) No ?
Comte de Frou-frou: No. I would like other people to earn the money, and give it to me.

And there, in a sentence you have Tory party economic policy, 1800-2017.

Simon Cox‏*@SimonFRCox* continued from above.
Will UK keep EU procurement rules that guard against corruption? Or cut corners & be "open to corruption" a la Doncaster & T Dan Smith 13/
Crisis is an opportunity for crooks & authoritarians. But also for opening democratic debate & securing progressive reform. 14/

Re comments about internet and tolerance reflect on May instead of Trump in this context:

lawfareblog.com/does-trump-want-lose-eo-battle-court-or-donald-mcgahn-simply-ineffectual-or-worse
From Feb:
The clearly foreseeable consequence of the roll-out combined with Trump’s tweets is to weaken the case for the legality of the EO in court. Why might Trump want to do that? Assuming that he is acting with knowledge and purpose (an assumption I question below), the only reason I can think of is that Trump is setting the scene to blame judges after an attack that has any conceivable connection to immigration. If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls. This will deflect blame for the attack. And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack. After a bad terrorist attack at home, politicians are always under intense pressure to loosen legal constraints. (This was even true for near-misses, such as the failed Underwear bomber, which caused the Obama administration to loosen constraints on its counterterrorism policies in many ways.) Courts feel these pressures, and those pressures will be significantly heightened, and any countervailing tendency to guard against executive overreaction diminished, if courts are widely seen to be responsible for an actual terrorist attack. More broadly, the usual security panic after a bad attack will be enhanced quite a lot—in courts and in Congress—if before the attack legal and judicial constraints are seen to block safety. If Trump assumes that there will be a bad terrorist attack on his watch, blaming judges now will deflect blame and enhance his power more than usual after the next attack.

Similar applies to May. She won't reverse cuts, but she now is setting up a scapegoat, which will allow her to get more executive power.

It seems this "there's no point voting for minority parties because they'll never count for anything" view only applies to, oh lemme think, the LibDems or the Greens.

It has to be said that a significant amount of the prominence given to UKIP and Farage is because of the right wing xenophobic press. Even so, even when they were talking up UKIP at every turn, the public were turning away from them, as could be seen at the Sleaford by-election, where they failed to make a breakthrough. Oh yes, the right wing press screamed how they had come second and pushed Labour into fourth place, but they didn't scream about how poor a second it was.

Now that election reporting rules have kicked in, the other parties are beginning to get more of a look in. Surprise, surprise, people find they like the Labour manifesto, and equally surprising, they don't like what they see of Theresa May all that much.

Boris has been doing an interview this morning having a go at Diane Abbott. The Tories have been relentlessly at her all week.

Now this:
Kevin Schofield‏*@PolhomeEditor*
Labour say Diane Abbott is "unwell" and won't be able to go on Women's Hour this morning as planned. Pity.

I am in two minds about this. Did the party pull her? Quite Likely.

Or is she really unwell. After what she has been getting the last few days, I wouldn't be surprised if she was stressed out beyond belief. Not ideal in a high profile politician who needs to be able to cope with stress. But also not beyond the realms of possibility either.

The trouble is that Diane Abbott effectively has previously pulled a sickie over the a50 vote. So even if she was genuinely ill, either physically or mentally, no one would believe a bloody word of it, and will be off the opinion that she's just shit.

It seems this "there's no point voting for minority parties because they'll never count for anything" view only applies to, oh lemme think, the LibDems or the Greens .

Quite elements

Also the lib dems aren't too ignorant of their own base to know that a chunk of their vote has always come from protest votes. The greens are a better party recently than they ever used to be and then ukip's presence gave more coherent choices to the protest than before.

Wrt brexit, I did agree with Corbyn stating early doors this election about more than that, it could have been a green light to anything elsewhere. However unfortunately it's allowing the parties and those who don't want to deal with their choices to continue to bury their heads in the sand.

Sam Coates Times‏*@SamCoatesTimes*
‘Bring back Gove to steady the ship’ say senior Tories

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/64724d6e-4a26-11e7-a7b8-5e01acd01516

Mr Gove has proved himself a more regular and reliable media commentator for Conservative headquarters than many of those in the cabinet, who have either stayed out of the limelight or been tripped up in interviews.

A Tory source said: “His name is regularly being talked about in CCHQ.

(Then I'm firewalled)

Boris has apparently made up with Gove. I suspect Gove is being lined up not just for the front bench...

Labour say Diane Abbott is "unwell"

I've been saying to myself, since the A50 vote, that she seems like a woman on the edge of a breakdown of some sort . Not because I'm impugning her mental health as such, far from it - but actually (having had a breakdown in the past) sort of recognising, in her recent behaviours, a similarity to what I went through as I approached crisis point.

Well if Labour pulled her from Woman's Hour the PRs are finally showing sense. I think she's ill...The article she wrote in the Guardian a little while back about the relentless torrent of abuse she gets on twitter etc was awful to read. Sadiq Khan impressive in London, asking the correct difficult questions, and Andy Burnham in Manchester. Two strong Labour mayors with home office potential should Corbyn pull off some miracle. May and Tories toast as far as their reputation goes. This personality trashing (Boris on Corbyn) when the country is in crisis is peculiarly British and its revolting.

I suspect Gove is being lined up not just for the front bench...

Perish the thought if Gove got to be PM. He made a mess of Education, although I will credit him with doing a better job at the Ministry of Justice. He would no doubt make a complete and utter mess of Brexit.

I've been saying to myself, since the A50 vote, that she seems like a woman on the edge of a breakdown of some sort
I must confess I have thought this also when I've seen her in interviews. She's never great tend, but recently it's been not quite right