May seeks snap election

[kactus]

So....It looks like Theresa May has announced plans for General Election on 8th June. At least, it is in June and not May making the headlines embarrassingly funny: PM May quits in May!

This comes as a bit of a Surprise. Not only because of her weak leadership and indecisiveness but also the timing post Brexit and triggering article 50....

Her inability to make important decisions and the constant bickering and excuses made no surprises that this was untenable... 

I would argue it is better than never. UK needs to have consensus and there is currently none inside Westminster. But what is the alternative? Jeremy Corbyn is a lame duck. Then you have the UKIP and Scottish Independence....The YouGove poll puts the Conservatives ahead of the rest at 43% as of 18th April with Labour trailing behind at 25%. 

Interesting times ahead......

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603

Thoughts?

[Guest]

I think it's pretty basic politics.  She needs a mandate to carry on with the Brexit stuff, and she doesn't want to be constantly referred to by her opponents as someone who was not voted into power as she does that.  She knows she is going to win, so why not get it over with now?

Of course, people have known they were going to win before...

Edited April 18, 2017 by bcsapper

[Boges]

The current mandate was given to someone that was Against Brexit. It makes sense to see if the Tories, as currently constructed, could get a mandate in the face of decisions that need to be made regarding Brexit. 

It would also be good to see if Pro Independence candidates in Scotland. 

[kactus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I think it's pretty basic politics.  She needs a mandate to carry on with the Brexit stuff, and she doesn't want to be constantly referred to by her opponents as someone who was not voted into power as she does that.  She knows she is going to win, so why not get it over with now?

Of course, people have known they were going to win before...

I agree that this does not mean she is quitting. May just called for an election but I do not think she is the right candidate. Boges made a good point. The current mandate was given to someone who is against Brexit and this shines through in every single speech she gives on the topic reluctantly.  

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

The current mandate was given to someone that was Against Brexit. It makes sense to see if the Tories, as currently constructed, could get a mandate in the face of decisions that need to be made regarding Brexit. 

It would also be good to see if Pro Independence candidates in Scotland. 

So, if someone who is against Brexit gets elected, what is the mandate, Brexit or no Brexit.

[kactus]

Just now, Wilber said:

So, if someone who is against Brexit gets elected, what is the mandate, Brexit or no Brexit.

Brexit it is. It all comes down to 8th June and who if any will replace May.

[Wilber]

Just now, kactus said:

Brexit it is. It all comes down to 8th June and who if any will replace May.

What if someone who campaigns against Brexit durning the election wins? What is then the mandate?

[kactus]

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

What if someone who campaigns against Brexit durning the election wins? What is then the mandate?

At the moment I am more concerned about invoking article 50 and lack of consensus in Westminster than who wins the election. May's snap election is well received by the other parties. I just feel that someone who campaigns against the Brexit may not be appropriate for this role. Cameron resigned for the same reasons.

[Wilber]

4 minutes ago, kactus said:

At the moment I am more concerned about invoking article 50 and lack of consensus in Westminster than who wins the election. May's snap election is well received by the other parties. I just feel that someone who campaigns against the Brexit may not be appropriate for this role. Cameron resigned for the same reasons.

Which begs the question, will this election be another referendum on Brexit?

[kactus]

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Which begs the question, will this election be another referendum on Brexit?

Valid question and we just have to wait and see what is going on behind those closed doors of Downing Street...I saw her speech earlier and she categorically said Brexit will go ahead as this is the way the British people have voted.

 

[overthere]

44 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Which begs the question, will this election be another referendum on Brexit?

Nope.  It is or will be an affirmation of Brexit.  May was a waffler on Brexit before the referendum, and was chosen as party leader and thus PM because she was not an avid campaigner for either side.  Cameron quit because he felt, and rightly, that he could not negotiate Britains Brexit after working hard to reject Brexit.

 

Corbyn is a waste of skin who was just barely popular enough  within his party to squeal through a leadership vote post Brexit.  The Labour voting system saved him, he won't do anywhere as well in a general election as he did now.  I doubt that many Labour stalwarts will be willing to hold their noses and vote for him over May in the election.  None of the other parties matter much. She will cruise to a majority and perhaps a larger majority than now, because I reckon Labour will lose seats.

 

Oh, and the First Past the Post system in the UK has 11 parties represented in the current parliament.

[-TSS-]

If people have come to second thoughts about Brexit then they should vote the LibDems to a landslide-victory as they are the biggest europhiles in Britain. However, that is not going to happen. They were annihilated last time around and are unlikely to recover this time either.

[kactus]

Lib Dems are hardly a major challenger party to Tories and Labour.

[Hudson Jones]

5 hours ago, overthere said:

Corbyn is a waste of skin who was just barely popular enough  within his party to squeal through a leadership vote post Brexit.  

He might surprise some people.

The Blairites, who are like the Hillary Democrats, tried to push Corbyn out for someone who is more of a yes-man to the establishment. That, obviously, created a negative atmosphere and hurt the party.

If the right in Labour shuts up and gets behind its elected leader, then Labour has a chance.

People in the West are drawn towards the anti-establishment candidates on various sides. Trump and Sanders are a perfect example.

[overthere]

The 'right' in Labour?   LOL.  

 

No, it was not the Blairites who pushed hard, it was the majority of the Labour caucus that wanted him gone after his shameful Brexit performance..  Only esoteric voting rules allowed Corbyn to remain.  He is a darling of the far left in Labour, but everybody else has had enough, and that includes most of his own party.  This snap election will be a disaster for Labour.  Corbyn should have resigned with Cameron after Brexit, his lack of leadership skills were painfully evident when he refused.

 

Corbyn is not anti-establishment, both Trump and Sanders are far more grounded and practical by nature than Corbyn.   Watch what happens: many Labour candidates will be disassociating themselves from Corbyn in this campaign.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, kactus said:

I agree that this does not mean she is quitting. May just called for an election but I do not think she is the right candidate. Boges made a good point. The current mandate was given to someone who is against Brexit and this shines through in every single speech she gives on the topic reluctantly.  

I don't think she'll quit.  I didn't intend to give that impression.  I think she is just taking advantage of the current climate to consolidate her position in order to ensure there are no vaccilations on the UK side during the Brexit process.  Of course, that could backfire, as I said.  I haven't had a lot of luck with my recent election predictions.

[marcus]

5 hours ago, overthere said:

The 'right' in Labour?   LOL.  

No, it was not the Blairites who pushed hard, it was the majority of the Labour caucus that wanted him gone after his shameful Brexit performance..  

No. It was the Blairites. All Corbyn has done is to try to move Labour to what it was founded on, which is social democracy. The situation is very much like Clinton vs Sanders, when you look at Blairites vs Corbyn.

Corbyn was elected as the party head, fair and square. He received close to 60% of the votes, while second place received 19%. There is nothing esoteric about that. The establishment did not like Corbyn leading the party so a campaign began to try to push aside the elected leader. That didn't work either. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

She's called it because she can win big. Few politicians can resist that, especially one as uninspiring as May. Down the road, she won't look so good after some painful compromises with the EU. It will make her look stronger in Britain but it won't affect the negotiations very much.  

[overthere]

On 4/18/2017 at 11:12 PM, marcus said:

No. It was the Blairites. All Corbyn has done is to try to move Labour to what it was founded on, which is social democracy. The situation is very much like Clinton vs Sanders, when you look at Blairites vs Corbyn.

Corbyn was elected as the party head, fair and square. He received close to 60% of the votes, while second place received 19%. There is nothing esoteric about that. The establishment did not like Corbyn leading the party so a campaign began to try to push aside the elected leader. That didn't work either. 

 

Blair has been gone for 10 years.  The remainder of the fractured Labour caucus is no more Blairites than Trudeaus caucus is Chretienites.

 

Corbyn got 60% of a leadership vote in a process that was totally rigged.  In reality, his own caucus has overwhelmingly disowned him, and Labour is specifically in wholesale disarray because of Corbyn.  Last year he had 75% of his own caucus reject him.  Now it is much worse.  The Commons MPs voted 509 to 13 to hold an election, which means that Corbyns entire caucus either voted with the ruling Cons, or abstained.  Since there is absolutely no gain possible for any party 'led' by a man so profoudlky unpopuar except for a tiny slice of far elft loons- that vote is perhaps the worst indictment of Labour by Labour  seen in decades.

[overthere]

22 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

She's called it because she can win big. Few politicians can resist that, especially one as uninspiring as May. Down the road, she won't look so good after some painful compromises with the EU. It will make her look stronger in Britain but it won't affect the negotiations very much.  

The Opposition voted overwhelmingly in favour of an early election too.  509-13.   Even if Labour is in complete, self inflcted disarray there is no advantage to having the country in the same situation.

 

They have the sense(with the notable exception of Corbyn and his very few supporters), to recognize that this is a time for the UK to stand as one and speak as one.  It is exactly what the UK needs in negotiations with not just the EU, but the world in general.  They are the 5th largest economy in the world.  They have a big stick to swing, if necessary.  And it will have somebody to swing it soon enough, and the first name won't be Jeremy.

 

I'm cheering for the UK.  They are our good friends and a formidable ally.

[-TSS-]

The role of the opposition is to create an impression that they are so much better than the government and they complain all the time that if only they were in the government everything would be so much better.

Against this background it would be very odd if they voted against early elections.

[overthere]

26 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

The role of the opposition is to create an impression that they are so much better than the government and they complain all the time that if only they were in the government everything would be so much better.

Against this background it would be very odd if they voted against early elections.

Well, no.  This election is 3 years early, and normally the Opposition would be howling at the waste of several hundred million dollars or pounds wasted to hold one this soon.   Also, this action under British law requires that 2/3 of the MPs vote in favour of an early  election.  PM May got 98%.  Though Corbyn says he is favour of the election, the real reason he said that is he knew his caucus is in open revolt against him.  It is his spin to save face, and he failed at that too.

 

 I reckon Labour is going to get crushed, and the main reason is that Corbyn leads them.  I also fully expect he will not resign when May mops the floor with his party.  Tough times for a venerable party.

[SpankyMcFarland]

May is not an impressive campaigner and she'll be less popular when the real haggling starts with Europe. That she has chosen a shortened campaign with no TV debates says a lot. 

Remainers should select the most viable pro-Europe candidate in their constituency which might be LibDem, Labour or even Conservative in a few places. Inevitably, though, the Remain vote will be fractured and, given the distortions of FPTP, May could end up with some preposterous number of MPs. I don't think the SNP will become the official opposition but it can't be completely ruled out right now. 

Edited April 21, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[-TSS-]

As a rule, parliamentary terms should be fixed. Only in case of a total deadlock early elections are acceptable and that was not the case in Britain.

Besides, this could backfire on the PM. This election is turning into another dispute about Brexit and 48% of the voters could wield significant influence. Luckily for May their votes will be scattered.

[marcus]

23 hours ago, overthere said:

Blair has been gone for 10 years.  The remainder of the fractured Labour caucus is no more Blairites than Trudeaus caucus is Chretienites.

 

Corbyn got 60% of a leadership vote in a process that was totally rigged.  In reality, his own caucus has overwhelmingly disowned him, and Labour is specifically in wholesale disarray because of Corbyn.  Last year he had 75% of his own caucus reject him.  Now it is much worse.  The Commons MPs voted 509 to 13 to hold an election, which means that Corbyns entire caucus either voted with the ruling Cons, or abstained.  Since there is absolutely no gain possible for any party 'led' by a man so profoudlky unpopuar except for a tiny slice of far elft loons- that vote is perhaps the worst indictment of Labour by Labour  seen in decades.

He is unpopular within the caucus, because Corbyn is anti-establishment. He disturbed the system. This is similar to Trump and Saunders, whose own party reps toed the line and went for the established candidates. 

Corbyn was quite popular amongst Labour voters when he was elected. He received more than 60% in the second election as well, when the failed coup happened. His popularity amongst voters has changed slightly due to the constant attacks by the sour MP's who can't stand someone being elected as the head of the party who is not part of the established system. However, the number of Labour memberships have increased. 

I'm not sure why you're attacking Corbyn when your anger should be towards the members who are doing everything in their power to ruin the party's chances of winning the election. Is it any of Corbyn's policies or stances that you're against? 

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by marcus