May and the current government are bed blockers. They need to get out of the way to enable someone competent to lead Brexit. Because it will take time for anyone to get up to speed, they should leave now.
We need someone good in charge.
Sounds sensible.
Who?
I doubt you would accept Corbyn /Starmer, the latter having done a particularly excellent job.
If I had to choose from the Tory party. That's more tricky. I would discount Gove as being unable to run a campaign on trust. Boris needs a serious look as the leader of Leave. Rudd is sound but dull. Kwateng needs to be in a senior role, but is too junior. Osborne, the obvious choice is unavailable. Hunt deserves a break from the NHS,but needs to remind us of talent.
Not easy.
Boris leader Kwateng Home Hunt Chancellor Rudd FO Gove Brexit
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
You think Trump does Latin? Who knew....
Boris is everything that May is not. I felt robbed by not having the chance to weigh him up against her in the last leadership election. Since then, we have seen Theresa May's faults laid bare to the electorate.
Love him or hate him, Boris connects people to politics. He has already been tested with two terms as Boss of the Big City, and despite the direst predictions, London did not fall into the Thames on his watch. He has done a year as Foreign Secretary, and despite the direst predictions, we are not at war with Germany. I often think the loudest wailing about Boris comes from those who fear he might actually be good at the job. Very, very good. And more so from within his own party than outside.
Avoiding war with Germany does not make you good at being foreign secretary. Boris is disdained, derided and despised in Europe and further afield. We need a PM who can do detail, mend bridges with good friends we've alienated and build new alliances with important countries. Boris can't do any of that. May can't either, of course. Hammond might be able to.
May and the current government are bed blockers. They need to get out of the way to enable someone competent to lead Brexit. Because it will take time for anyone to get up to speed, they should leave now.
We need someone good in charge.
Sounds sensible.
Who?
I doubt you would accept Corbyn /Starmer, the latter having done a particularly excellent job.
If I had to choose from the Tory party. That's more tricky. I would discount Gove as being unable to run a campaign on trust. Boris needs a serious look as the leader of Leave. Rudd is sound but dull. Kwateng needs to be in a senior role, but is too junior. Osborne, the obvious choice is unavailable. Hunt deserves a break from the NHS,but needs to remind us of talent.
Not easy.
Boris leader Kwateng Home Hunt Chancellor Rudd FO Gove Brexit
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
You think Trump does Latin? Who knew....
Boris is everything that May is not. I felt robbed by not having the chance to weigh him up against her in the last leadership election. Since then, we have seen Theresa May's faults laid bare to the electorate.
Love him or hate him, Boris connects people to politics. He has already been tested with two terms as Boss of the Big City, and despite the direst predictions, London did not fall into the Thames on his watch. He has done a year as Foreign Secretary, and despite the direst predictions, we are not at war with Germany. I often think the loudest wailing about Boris comes from those who fear he might actually be good at the job. Very, very good. And more so from within his own party than outside.
Avoiding war with Germany does not make you good at being foreign secretary. Boris is disdained, derided and despised in Europe and further afield. We need a PM who can do detail, mend bridges with good friends we've alienated and build new alliances with important countries. Boris can't do any of that. May can't either, of course. Hammond might be able to.
Having some principles, some good judgement, some consistency, and some respect around the world would be useful too.
so what... it was a UK election , you are so one eyed its getting very irritating.
Of course it was a UK election.
I am not complaining that Ruth Davidson "won the election" for May, but it is a useful and interesting fact to discuss
The election killed off two big SNP memes: England is moving inexorably rightwards as Scotland moves left; and England's result is the only one that affects a Westminster election.
On Thursday we saw a higher percentage of people in England vote for the most left-wing manifesto on offer than Scots; and it's only thanks to Scottish Tory MPs there's a Tory government.
I would not be surprised if Labour was again the biggest Scottish party in Westminster elections in the relatively near future.
I think that is the other big thing that the election told us.
The Central Belt seats are coming back to Labour. They’ll take most of them next time.
Mr. Max, people shouldn't be too harsh on Timothy or Hill. Crucifixion would suffice.
Mr. Jonathan, temperament. I think we're generally (and the media in particular) to precious about colourful personal lives.
Boris cannot be taken seriously. He's Foreign Secretary whilst we've got raised tensions with North Korea, the South China Sea situation. Qatar blockaded, Iran blaming Saudi Arabia for a terrorist attack, and the EU negotiations to come. He's absolutely not up to it.
On an electoral note, I don't think he flies in the North, and maybe not in the Midlands. So what if he's popular in the South? That's Toryland anyway.
I'd be wary about predicting where Boris will be popular (other than not Liverpool!). People might like his showmanship - hard to tell.
Blaming Timothy or Hill is like blaming a navigator for a car crash. Yes they didn't help but Theresa May's hands were on the wheel.
May and the current government are bed blockers. They need to get out of the way to enable someone competent to lead Brexit. Because it will take time for anyone to get up to speed, they should leave now.
We need someone good in charge.
Sounds sensible.
Who?
I doubt you would accept Corbyn /Starmer, the latter having done a particularly excellent job.
If I had to choose from the Tory party. That's more tricky. I would discount Gove as being unable to run a campaign on trust. Boris needs a serious look as the leader of Leave. Rudd is sound but dull. Kwateng needs to be in a senior role, but is too junior. Osborne, the obvious choice is unavailable. Hunt deserves a break from the NHS,but needs to remind us of talent.
Not easy.
Boris leader Kwateng Home Hunt Chancellor Rudd FO Gove Brexit
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
I think he'd need to deliver £350m per week for the NHS, as long as he does that then the idea that he lied to win the referendum goes away. Boris has the right cult of personality to take Britain into the rest of the world. You might not like him, but the response to him outside of Europe is usually very positive.
Laughter is a positive emotion, I guess.
The response to him inside Europe ranges from active hate to total disdain. That is not a good place from which to begin Brexit talks.
If we had enough politicians with the maturity, sense of responsibility and duty to the country, understanding of the existential dangers of Brexit to both the UK and the wider EU, and ability to put aside power plays and petty party differences, we *could* form a government of national unity to get us through Brexit, give the exhausted electorate a break from elections, reassure the markets and our international partners, and demonstrably show that we were 'getting a grip' (as the saying goes).
Which politicians do we have that fit the criterion? A lot more than conventional wisdom would suggest. But it would take senior figures in all parties to do the initial secret talks, run the risk of leaks - and almost all of the figures you might think of (Major, Blair, Cable) are probably too toxic as a 'brand'.
The LibDems might have been a position to discuss this, but they also have 'baggage'.
Boris is clearly a roll of the dice for the Tories. He also is a bit yesterdays man. But the field is very weak, so they have to consider it. My hunch is that he might play very badly against Corbyn.
He's the gambler's candidate, no doubt.
But given we've just tried the safe pair of hands candidate, Imkeen to give him a go. Let Mrs May steady the ship for a few monhs then pass over.
I'm trying to think - has Boris ever lost an election? I think he has won every time he has ever stood...
May and the current government are bed blockers. They need to get out of the way to enable someone competent to lead Brexit. Because it will take time for anyone to get up to speed, they should leave now.
We need someone good in charge.
Sounds sensible.
Who?
I doubt you would accept Corbyn /Starmer, the latter having done a particularly excellent job.
If I had to choose from the Tory party. That's more tricky. I would discount Gove as being unable to run a campaign on trust. Boris needs a serious look as the leader of Leave. Rudd is sound but dull. Kwateng needs to be in a senior role, but is too junior. Osborne, the obvious choice is unavailable. Hunt deserves a break from the NHS,but needs to remind us of talent.
Not easy.
Boris leader Kwateng Home Hunt Chancellor Rudd FO Gove Brexit
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
You think Trump does Latin? Who knew....
Boris is everything that May is not. I felt robbed by not having the chance to weigh him up against her in the last leadership election. Since then, we have seen Theresa May's faults laid bare to the electorate.
Love him or hate him, Boris connects people to politics. He has already been tested with two terms as Boss of the Big City, and despite the direst predictions, London did not fall into the Thames on his watch. He has done a year as Foreign Secretary, and despite the direst predictions, we are not at war with Germany. I often think the loudest wailing about Boris comes from those who fear he might actually be good at the job. Very, very good. And more so from within his own party than outside.
Avoiding war with Germany does not make you good at being foreign secretary. Boris is disdained, derided and despised in Europe and further afield. We need a PM who can do detail, mend bridges with good friends we've alienated and build new alliances with important countries. Boris can't do any of that. May can't either, of course. Hammond might be able to.
Having some principles, some good judgement, some consistency, and some respect around the world would be useful too.
+1. Before Brexit, Johnson's cheeky charm might cover the void of principle and judgment. Now it just engenders contempt.
That's an excellent analysis - thanks for the link.
On topic, welcome back to David, but the proposal for a constiutional convention does feel a bit like adjusting the system to clear the way for a specific proposed candidate. I see Ruth's attraction for Tories, but having a leader who isn't in Parliament is clearly inconvenient (whih is why Khan wouldn't have been an option if we were now trying to resolve a post-eleciton meldown), and leisurely tinkering with the internal arrangements while May's zombie government rides into the valley of death isn't going to be a good look.
Labour, meanwhile, needs to be statesmanlike, something Jeremy is very good at, as his first post-election interview showed, and extend the Shadow Cabinet with some centrists. No need to be nasty to May: let her stumble on, and concentrate on offering a calm alternative government. The tabloids have fired all their guns at Jeremy and the bullets bounced off: going on about alleged IRA cosiness in the 70s yet again in N months/years is just going to look silly. There will come a point when Tory messing about will annoy everyone to the point that giving Labour a chance will feel the natural option to most voters.
May and the current government are bed blockers. They need to get out of the way to enable someone competent to lead Brexit. Because it will take time for anyone to get up to speed, they should leave now.
We need someone good in charge.
Sounds sensible.
Who?
I doubt you would accept Corbyn /Starmer, the latter having done a particularly excellent job.
If I had to choose from the Tory party. That's more tricky. I would discount Gove as being unable to run a campaign on trust. Boris needs a serious look as the leader of Leave. Rudd is sound but dull. Kwateng needs to be in a senior role, but is too junior. Osborne, the obvious choice is unavailable. Hunt deserves a break from the NHS,but needs to remind us of talent.
Not easy.
Boris leader Kwateng Home Hunt Chancellor Rudd FO Gove Brexit
Corbyn's not an option, he led a party at an election that fell far short of a majority.
I could see a role for Starmer and some of the other sensible Labourites (by which I mean pretty much anyone the general public has heard of other than Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott) in a two year GONU dedicated to delivering on the negotiations and nothing else. But I can't see that Labour could (or should, looking at their narrow party interest) accept that.
Mr. Mark, being heavily associated with London might not be an asset beyond it, and it seems the cosmopolitan left really like Corbyn's shade of Soviet red.
I think having two terms as Mayor of London on your CV shows a level of stewardship of the public interest that, frankly, no-one else in the House of Commons can get close to matching. Having Boris for PM would bring a bunch of his former voters back into the blue column in London, where ehe reached parts others couldn't. He beat Red Ken and by proxy, the cosmopolitan left.
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
Boris is much much better than Trump. He's very flexible ideologically which could be helpful for Brexit. He brings some showmanship.
But he is disliked on the continent. And enough of his colleagues don't trust him at all - he would need a big majority just to account for that.
And he hasn't really proved he can do a big job yet. He doesn't have much domestic policy experience and would need a lot of support even to be a basically competent PM.
Mr. Cwsc, a lot of seats were very close, youth turnout was unexpectedly high and it seems some Remain Conservatives backed Labour as revenge for the referendum. The next election could very much go either way. I'd be wary of predicting it.
We can't cancel Brexit. We have to still respect the referendum result.
We can. The question is whether we should.
Tezza fought the election on a specific version of Brexit (no single market, perhaps no deal at all) and the voters told her where to stick it
So, again, does the election mandate (no to hard Brexit) supersede the referendum mandate (Brexit, whatever that means)?
As we discussed yesterday, whilst cancelling Brexit now isn't an option, there is at least a path towards it, that would start by shaping a soft Brexit deal to be put to a debate in parliament, and finish with a fresh referendum offering a choice between this Brexit deal or the status quo in say eighteen months' time.
The status quo isn't an option either, why should the EU27 offer it?
They might offer a choice between a deal and full membership including the euro and Schengen.
Franlky, May has to go and soon.. three months max.. The Tories have fecked themselves good and proper. I cannot see how they can win the next election. The prospect of Corbyn frightens the life out of a lot of people inc me..
She should have announced she was going yesterday. The government can't just carry on as if nothing happened.
Yep. How can such a weakened PM negotiate in our interests?
That's why there needs to be a leadership contest.
'Not another one!'
No more leadership contests. Just abandon Brexit and then the government can roll along quite comfortably with a non majority government as many countries do. Brexit is the problem not Theresa May's lack of a majority.
But we're told this would result in an insurrection by the honest yeomans of Olde England, with a metropolitan elitist dangling from every lampost.
Perhaps the Tories can take advice from their new allies on how to keep a lid on their headbangers & psychos (get them elected and stuff their mouths with gold it would appear).
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
so what... it was a UK election , you are so one eyed its getting very irritating.
Of course it was a UK election.
I am not complaining that Ruth Davidson "won the election" for May, but it is a useful and interesting fact to discuss
The election killed off two big SNP memes: England is moving inexorably rightwards as Scotland moves left; and England's result is the only one that affects a Westminster election.
On Thursday we saw a higher percentage of people in England vote for the most left-wing manifesto on offer than Scots; and it's only thanks to Scottish Tory MPs there's a Tory government.
I would not be surprised if Labour was again the biggest Scottish party in Westminster elections in the relatively near future.
I think that SNP support could rapidly fall away now.
I can't claim that this is the overall result I wanted, but the strengthening of pro-Union parties is a very big consolation. Had the Tories won say, 40 more seats in England, while the SNP took 56 again, then it's hard to see how the Union would endure.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
Sounds unlikely. Abortion is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, isn't it? Would this Tory minister be in for our of reducing abortion limits by any chance?
So according to Aschcrofts the SNP lost a big, big chunk of its Leaver vote.
Maybe it was about Brexit after all in Scotland.
En masse to the SCons I assume? I wonder how they feel about their leader's rediscovered love for the single market? Not to worry, I'm sure a new position will be along shortly.
Boris is clearly a roll of the dice for the Tories. He also is a bit yesterdays man. But the field is very weak, so they have to consider it. My hunch is that he might play very badly against Corbyn.
He's the gambler's candidate, no doubt.
But given we've just tried the safe pair of hands candidate, Imkeen to give him a go. Let Mrs May steady the ship for a few monhs then pass over.
I'm trying to think - has Boris ever lost an election? I think he has won every time he has ever stood...
Eh? Cameron turned out to be a huge gambler. May turned out to be a huge gambler. Surely we must do better than the gambling addict's instinct to win it all back from another big bet?
Political change is inexorable , the next GE will see a Labour government elected . The choice for the Conservatives is to have the next GE within the the next 12 months and suffer a narrow defeat or carry on for 4/5 years and suffer a 1997 style wipe out . In this day and age it is not possible for any Government to run a country ( even if it does it well ) without alienating an ever larger number of voters . Conservatives can say well on Thursday we got an increased vote share of 43% of the vote but many of those were not pro Conservative votes but voters frightened into voting Conservative out of fear of Corbyn .
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
so what... it was a UK election , you are so one eyed its getting very irritating.
Of course it was a UK election.
I am not complaining that Ruth Davidson "won the election" for May, but it is a useful and interesting fact to discuss
The election killed off two big SNP memes: England is moving inexorably rightwards as Scotland moves left; and England's result is the only one that affects a Westminster election.
On Thursday we saw a higher percentage of people in England vote for the most left-wing manifesto on offer than Scots; and it's only thanks to Scottish Tory MPs there's a Tory government.
I would not be surprised if Labour was again the biggest Scottish party in Westminster elections in the relatively near future.
I think that SNP support could rapidly fall away now.
I can't claim that this is the overall result I wanted, but the strengthening of pro-Union parties is a very big consolation. Had the Tories won say, 40 more seats in England, while the SNP took 56 again, then it's hard to see how the Union would endure.
This will put the final nail in the 'coalition of chaos' line though - between the SNP fallback and the tories working with the DUP, this will no longer be a useable attack against Labour.
The voters massively reaffirmed that Brexit means Brexit. The only thing we learned last the specifics during the election was that if the EU offered us the shittiest of shitty deals and refused to budge an inch, Corbyn would still have taken it.
No, we also learned that voters agreed "no deal is better than a bad deal" was the jumped up bollocks we always knew it to be
Your vision of Brexit was put to the electorate, and they told you where to stick it
I think that's possibly true with some of the seats. But ultimately this election wasn't about that - even if the PM wanted it to be. What did for May (in terms of winning a majority) was daring to be honest about how she'd fund adult social care.
I now think the Tories should ditch May and tell the new leader to call another election. I think it's now inevitable that Labour will win the next election, so we might as well get on with it now.
I think the next election is highly unpredictable.
There is likely to be much more scrutiny on Corbyn’s plans. Even with the most dreadful campaign in living memory and a poor leader, the Tories did still manage to win.
Corbyn’s mistakes didn’t matter because no-one thought he’d do this well. Even Nick Palmer was predicting seat losses, as I recollect.
(This is not to take anything away from Corbyn’s achievement -- the Tories found out what Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Owen Smith know. He’s one helluva campaigner).
Everything is unpredictable. I expected Labour to win enough seats to form a government in 2015, Remain to narrowly win last year, Hilary Clinton to scrape home, and the Conservatives to win a working majority.
Yes. Right now, Labour have massively outperformed expectations, and the Tories have the 1993-1997 air about them.
But, there's no iron law to say there'll be a further 4-5% swing to Labour, if another election were held in a year or two, and that they'd capture the further 60 or seats they'd need to be sure to govern.
Everything is unpredictable. I expected Labour to win enough seats to form a government in 2015, Remain to narrowly win last year, Hilary Clinton to scrape home, and the Conservatives to win a working majority.
You are JackW's predictive love child and may claim a slap to his ARSE.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
QTWTAIN.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
Why go for supply and confidence? The DUP would never vote to have Corbyn as PM or abstain and thereby allow it.
Mr. B2, the EU referendum should've been easily won. For all the justified criticism of May, the loss for Remain in that vote was just as shocking. They had the broadcast media, the vast majority of the political establishment, and most of business on-side.
There is, as others have said, a lesson to be drawn about being positive over trying to frighten people.
Perhaps the Tories can take advice from their new allies on how to keep a lid on their headbangers & psychos (get them elected and stuff their mouths with gold it would appear).
ROFLMAO
A Zoomer offering advice on "how to keep a lid on their headbangers & psychos"
Pleased to see Lorna apparently helped elect a Tory in Stirling.
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
Boris is much much better than Trump. He's very flexible ideologically which could be helpful for Brexit. He brings some showmanship.
But he is disliked on the continent. And enough of his colleagues don't trust him at all - he would need a big majority just to account for that.
And he hasn't really proved he can do a big job yet. He doesn't have much domestic policy experience and would need a lot of support even to be a basically competent PM.
Haha yes that's true. But Boris is still much better! I genuinely think Trump may be a threat to American democracy. I can't imagine him accepting an election defeat... It's easy for me to imagine him inciting riots etc.
Boris won't give away the family silver because someone flattered him. Boris won't endanger national security by accident/to settle a score with someone. Boris won't funnel enormous amounts of money to his own companies to enrich himself.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
QTWTAIN.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
That's part of t ftpa isn't it which the Tories promised to reverse but under which they are still working?
A minority government that needs to focus 100% on Brexit now pissing about with unpopular abortion law restrictions.
DUP tail wagging the Tory dog
Can we bet anywhere on the next YouGov showing a Labour lead? May's mid-term is going to start straight away and make Mrs T's midterm unpopularity look like a picnic,
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
QTWTAIN.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
You're confusing a vote of confidence(50% required) with a vote for an election (66%). An election isn't automatic if the Opposition opposes it.
In the past two years the Tories have lost/irrevocably damaged.
Cameron Osborne Hague May Gove
This is the cause of their current pain.
Other than Hague they've all destroyed themselves?
May sacked Osborne for no reason
And would have done the same for Hammond. Could be an opening for a John major figure.
Edit. Being put under house arrest during the clusterfuck election inadvertently inoculated him. He's also a Remainer, which is what is needed now and reasonably competent, unlike May, Johnson and Gove
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act moves the decision point away from The Queen in this: If the Prime Minister wants a new election, she has to either ask Jeremy Corbyn to vote for it or let her own government lose a no-confidence vote. If her government loses a no-confidence vote, Jeremy Corbyn gets a chance to try to form a government.
The only part that's a bit vague is that in the no-confidence case, it's not quite clear what it would take to make Jeremy Corbyn caretaker Prime Minister; If he can make a case that he can clearly get a majority then he definitely gets the job, and if it's obviously impossible then he probably doesn't, but there's a fuzzy area in between where he probably couldn't get the DUP to vote for his Queen's Speech, but you never know.
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
Boris is much much better than Trump. He's very flexible ideologically which could be helpful for Brexit. He brings some showmanship.
But he is disliked on the continent. And enough of his colleagues don't trust him at all - he would need a big majority just to account for that.
And he hasn't really proved he can do a big job yet. He doesn't have much domestic policy experience and would need a lot of support even to be a basically competent PM.
Haha yes that's true. But Boris is still much better! I genuinely think Trump may be a threat to American democracy. I can't imagine him accepting an election defeat... It's easy for me to imagine him inciting riots etc.
Boris won't give away the family silver because someone flattered him. Boris won't endanger national security by accident/to settle a score with someone. Boris won't funnel enormous amounts of money to his own companies to enrich himself.
Trump seems to have had some success in business.
Johnson can turn out a mean article and once wrote articles arguing for two opposite opinions on the same day.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
There's truth in what you say. It's dislike fuelled by fear that attacks on him don't seem to cut through. I mean he's Eton, demonstrably dishonest, and yet people don't seem to mind...
£350m a week would be a political masterstroke and I really think would have won May a crushing majority.
Mr. B2, the EU referendum should've been easily won. For all the justified criticism of May, the loss for Remain in that vote was just as shocking. They had the broadcast media, the vast majority of the political establishment, and most of business on-side.
There is, as others have said, a lesson to be drawn about being positive over trying to frighten people.
The lesson we can draw from the referendum and the election is, if you offer voters sweeties you can't possibly deliver, they will vote for it.
If you offer them unvarnished truth, they will not.
so what... it was a UK election , you are so one eyed its getting very irritating.
Of course it was a UK election.
I am not complaining that Ruth Davidson "won the election" for May, but it is a useful and interesting fact to discuss
The election killed off two big SNP memes: England is moving inexorably rightwards as Scotland moves left; and England's result is the only one that affects a Westminster election.
On Thursday we saw a higher percentage of people in England vote for the most left-wing manifesto on offer than Scots; and it's only thanks to Scottish Tory MPs there's a Tory government.
I would not be surprised if Labour was again the biggest Scottish party in Westminster elections in the relatively near future.
I think that SNP support could rapidly fall away now.
I can't claim that this is the overall result I wanted, but the strengthening of pro-Union parties is a very big consolation. Had the Tories won say, 40 more seats in England, while the SNP took 56 again, then it's hard to see how the Union would endure.
Yes, that's fair.
I live in hope that by the time the next GE is held, by some miracle, Jeremy Corbyn will no longer be Labour leader, because at the moment I'd put him favourite to win it.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
QTWTAIN.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
You're confusing a vote of confidence(50% required) with a vote for an election (66%). An election isn't automatic if the Opposition opposes it.
Would Labour really vote against another election?
Everything is unpredictable. I expected Labour to win enough seats to form a government in 2015, Remain to narrowly win last year, Hilary Clinton to scrape home, and the Conservatives to win a working majority.
You are JackW's predictive love child and may claim a slap to his ARSE.
What is your esteemed estimation on the tory dalliance with the DUP?
Yesterday you seemed to think there might be a small amount of negatives amongst the obvious garden of glory of such an informal alliance.
Have you now relaised that there is no flaw in such a pact between the Conservatives and the DUP?
The voters massively reaffirmed that Brexit means Brexit. The only thing we learned last the specifics during the election was that if the EU offered us the shittiest of shitty deals and refused to budge an inch, Corbyn would still have taken it.
No, we also learned that voters agreed "no deal is better than a bad deal" was the jumped up bollocks we always knew it to be
Your vision of Brexit was put to the electorate, and they told you where to stick it
I think that's possibly true with some of the seats. But ultimately this election wasn't about that - even if the PM wanted it to be. What did for May (in terms of winning a majority) was daring to be honest about how she'd fund adult social care.
I now think the Tories should ditch May and tell the new leader to call another election. I think it's now inevitable that Labour will win the next election, so we might as well get on with it now.
I think the next election is highly unpredictable.
There is likely to be much more scrutiny on Corbyn’s plans. Even with the most dreadful campaign in living memory and a poor leader, the Tories did still manage to win.
Corbyn’s mistakes didn’t matter because no-one thought he’d do this well. Even Nick Palmer was predicting seat losses, as I recollect.
(This is not to take anything away from Corbyn’s achievement -- the Tories found out what Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Owen Smith know. He’s one helluva campaigner).
Everything is unpredictable. I expected Labour to win enough seats to form a government in 2015, Remain to narrowly win last year, Hilary Clinton to scrape home, and the Conservatives to win a working majority.
Yes. Right now, Labour have massively outperformed expectations, and the Tories have the 1993-1997 air about them.
But, there's no iron law to say there'll be a further 4-5% swing to Labour, if another election were held in a year or two, and that they'd capture the further 60 or seats they'd need to be sure to govern.
Anything can happen.
The DUP demonstrate that. In March, the voters gave them a kicking, on Thursday they rewarded them.
It's your fault Southam. Your forecast of a large Tory majority the day before, was an indicator that it wasn't going to happen - perhaps the cause of it not happening.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
QTWTAIN.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
You're confusing a vote of confidence(50% required) with a vote for an election (66%). An election isn't automatic if the Opposition opposes it.
No, I am not.
The question was on Royal refusal. To which my answer was correct.
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
Fear on Boris is limited to the competence of his administration.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
Boris is clearly a roll of the dice for the Tories. He also is a bit yesterdays man. But the field is very weak, so they have to consider it. My hunch is that he might play very badly against Corbyn.
He's the gambler's candidate, no doubt.
But given we've just tried the safe pair of hands candidate, Imkeen to give him a go. Let Mrs May steady the ship for a few monhs then pass over.
I'm trying to think - has Boris ever lost an election? I think he has won every time he has ever stood...
Eh? Cameron turned out to be a huge gambler. May turned out to be a huge gambler. Surely we must do better than the gambling addict's instinct to win it all back from another big bet?
At some stage the Tories - who claim to be the patriots, let's not forget - have to start putting country before party. Another wreckless gamble is not doing that.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
May and the current government are bed blockers. They need to get out of the way to enable someone competent to lead Brexit. Because it will take time for anyone to get up to speed, they should leave now.
We need someone good in charge.
Sounds sensible.
Who?
I doubt you would accept Corbyn /Starmer, the latter having done a particularly excellent job.
If I had to choose from the Tory party. That's more tricky. I would discount Gove as being unable to run a campaign on trust. Boris needs a serious look as the leader of Leave. Rudd is sound but dull. Kwateng needs to be in a senior role, but is too junior. Osborne, the obvious choice is unavailable. Hunt deserves a break from the NHS,but needs to remind us of talent.
Not easy.
Boris leader Kwateng Home Hunt Chancellor Rudd FO Gove Brexit
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
I think he'd need to deliver £350m per week for the NHS, as long as he does that then the idea that he lied to win the referendum goes away. Boris has the right cult of personality to take Britain into the rest of the world. You might not like him, but the response to him outside of Europe is usually very positive.
Laughter is a positive emotion, I guess.
The response to him inside Europe ranges from active hate to total disdain. That is not a good place from which to begin Brexit talks.
I think the reaction to him in Europe is irrelevant tbh, especially since we're probably going for EEA/EFTA.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act moves the decision point away from The Queen in this: If the Prime Minister wants a new election, she has to either ask Jeremy Corbyn to vote for it or let her own government lose a no-confidence vote. If her government loses a no-confidence vote, Jeremy Corbyn gets a chance to try to form a government.
The only part that's a bit vague is that in the no-confidence case, it's not quite clear what it would take to make Jeremy Corbyn caretaker Prime Minister; If he can make a case that he can clearly get a majority then he definitely gets the job, and if it's obviously impossible then he probably doesn't, but there's a fuzzy area in between where he probably couldn't get the DUP to vote for his Queen's Speech, but you never know.
If I was more financially secure (I'm not) I'd be inclined to let Corbyn try and be PM and destroy himself.
He wouldn't last long and the Tories would be back in office soon enough, but would need an extra term or so to clear up the damage.
But I hesitate over Chuka... An apology from him over calling Labour members petulant children would be nice! I should probably let it go though... He's a good media performer and could maybe be a deputy/backup support to Starmer on Brexit.
I don't think it was right for him to call Labour members petulant children, so I agree that apologising would help in soothing tensions.
Keir Starmer is another Shadow Cabinet member I like. I think a Starmer/Chuka Shadow Brexit team would be great.
As you can see, after all that moaning from me during the GE I'm likely to be coming back into the Labour fold, despite my own misgivings about Corbyn/McDonnell!
Well you're very welcome to come back I am sure! And I'm sorry about the abuse you received from some for leaving/thinking of leaving.
Hopefully the success of Corbyn, but also of people like Peter Kyle in Hove shows people that we don't need squabbles and abuse in the Labour party, we just have to compromise and work together to win.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Agreed.
Turns out Labour supporters have neither principles or integrity. They just want to win elections.
A real shame, because I had a lot of respect for SO.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Agreed.
Turns out Labour supporters have neither principles or integrity. They just want to win elections.
A real shame, because I had a lot of respect for SO.
LOL
Just to be clear that's "laugh out loud" not Loyal Orange Lodge.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Agreed.
Turns out Labour supporters have neither principles or integrity. They just want to win elections.
A real shame, because I had a lot of respect for SO.
That's exactly how it looks. I see @The_Apocalypse is in the same boat.
I think these people deserve a proper Labour government.
Could the queen refuse to dissolve parliament say in October and ask the Rt Hon Jeramy Corbyn leader of HMO to try and form one on the basis we've just had an election so bloody well get on with running the country. Only when it became clear that not even a government of national unity could be formed when Corbyn failed would she then dissolve parliament?
QTWTAIN.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
You're confusing a vote of confidence(50% required) with a vote for an election (66%). An election isn't automatic if the Opposition opposes it.
Would Labour really vote against another election?
And another six week campaign because of the delay that the ftpa apparently requires after the 66% vote. You'd have to recall parliament in early September to meet an October date and avoid the conferences
Ruth Davidson is a brilliant anti-everything campaigner. She can be anti-independence and anti-London Tory polices on Europe and your friends and allies in the wood pellet-cum-Irish flag burning party. But has Davidson ever been popular when she's been FOR something?
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
There's truth in what you say. It's dislike fuelled by fear that attacks on him don't seem to cut through. I mean he's Eton, demonstrably dishonest, and yet people don't seem to mind...
£350m a week would be a political masterstroke and I really think would have won May a crushing majority.
He needed time away from Brexit , a little distance. If he could find the £350m in a manifesto then he is a force again.
Another thought: what if Mrs May is actually a titan of political strategy? She fulfilled her lifetime ambition of becoming PM without anyone suspecting that was her intent or even noticing that she was trying. Her next missions? Saving her country by seeing off Scottish independence and saving our economy by seeing off Brexit. So far it's all going to plan...
Boris as PM would be actively harmful to UK interests. He is our Trump.
Boris is much much better than Trump. He's very flexible ideologically which could be helpful for Brexit. He brings some showmanship.
But he is disliked on the continent. And enough of his colleagues don't trust him at all - he would need a big majority just to account for that.
And he hasn't really proved he can do a big job yet. He doesn't have much domestic policy experience and would need a lot of support even to be a basically competent PM.
Haha yes that's true. But Boris is still much better! I genuinely think Trump may be a threat to American democracy. I can't imagine him accepting an election defeat... It's easy for me to imagine him inciting riots etc.
Boris won't give away the family silver because someone flattered him. Boris won't endanger national security by accident/to settle a score with someone. Boris won't funnel enormous amounts of money to his own companies to enrich himself.
Trump seems to have had some success in business.
Johnson can turn out a mean article and once wrote articles arguing for two opposite opinions on the same day.
Trump's success in business has been in convincing others he is successful. He has actually been disastrous, and if you consider how far he is prepared to break rules and act dishonestly it's really astounding how unsuccessful he has been.
The dementia tax was unpopular because of the impact on a man's ability to leave his house to his issue.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
I think that's unfair, you don't need to have children to care about the future. I think it's much easier to assume they are simply idiots who didn't give the policy much thought. All three should go as soon as possible.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Ah come on. Appreciate you're shocked and upset, but don't be a sore loser. This is the first time Labour has gained seats in twenty years. Can you imagine that? Chuck in all the gloating on here we've taken. Twenty years of shit, abuse and going backwards.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Agreed.
Turns out Labour supporters have neither principles or integrity. They just want to win elections.
A real shame, because I had a lot of respect for SO.
Please, tell us more about how you think price caps are both Marxist tosh and a great idea.
The voters massively reaffirmed that Brexit means Brexit. The only thing we learned last the specifics during the election was that if the EU offered us the shittiest of shitty deals and refused to budge an inch, Corbyn would still have taken it.
No, we also learned that voters agreed "no deal is better than a bad deal" was the jumped up bollocks we always knew it to be
Your vision of Brexit was put to the electorate, and they told you where to stick it
I think that's possibly true with some of the seats. But ultimately this election wasn't about that - even if the PM wanted it to be. What did for May (in terms of winning a majority) was daring to be honest about how she'd fund adult social care.
I now think the Tories should ditch May and tell the new leader to call another election. I think it's now inevitable that Labour will win the next election, so we might as well get on with it now.
I think the next election is highly unpredictable.
There is likely to be much more scrutiny on Corbyn’s plans. Even with the most dreadful campaign in living memory and a poor leader, the Tories did still manage to win.
Corbyn’s mistakes didn’t matter because no-one thought he’d do this well. Even Nick Palmer was predicting seat losses, as I recollect.
(This is not to take anything away from Corbyn’s achievement -- the Tories found out what Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Owen Smith know. He’s one helluva campaigner).
Everything is unpredictable. I expected Labour to win enough seats to form a government in 2015, Remain to narrowly win last year, Hilary Clinton to scrape home, and the Conservatives to win a working majority.
Yes. Right now, Labour have massively outperformed expectations, and the Tories have the 1993-1997 air about them.
But, there's no iron law to say there'll be a further 4-5% swing to Labour, if another election were held in a year or two, and that they'd capture the further 60 or seats they'd need to be sure to govern.
Anything can happen.
Indeed, few elections have gone as expected here in the last few years.
And while it has been mentioned that May has achieved a 1923 result:
I also think there is fear of Boris among Labour ranks, he won twice in London, a Labour city because he was able to connect with common people a lot more easily than other Tory politicians. He could lead a blue advance into areas that are deep crimson at the moment and if he were to deliver the £350m per week then a lot of the claims of lies would disappear, making it easier for him to win in Labour areas and shore up Tory Remainers.
He is a very able man. There is also the question of whether he would be any good at running the country (at least, not substantially worse than the other contenders). I am confident Boris is "up for the job" in terms of being a good salesman come election-time and, based on reports of how he worked as London Mayor and how he is doing in the Foreign Office, quite capable of getting on with the business of administration. But there are at least four black marks against him, more serious than his love life or gaffe-prone nature or the "buffoon" question..
Would the EU treat him as a serious negotiating partner? (I guess the EU would just have to learn to, but people will be bearing this in mind when considering supporting him.)
As leader of the party, would he be a net vote loser and potentially a brand-retoxifier? (There are certain parts of the population he can reach that other Tories can't, so I don't understand why more use wasn't made of him on the campaign trail, rather than the narrow presidential-style focus on May. If there'd been a Boris Bus with the - relatively cheap, over 5 years with inflation - £350m/week NHS promise on it, I think the Tories would have a majority right now. But he also turns some swing voters right off, and he is yet another posho. May has got through to people that Cameron couldn't. Plenty of these voters would find Boris PM unpalatable. As a tool deployed correctly I'm sure he wins votes, as figurehead of a national campaign he could well be a big net negative.)
Could his obvious upper-class Englishness and divisiveness cost the Tories in key regions or nations? (We know how the folk of Liverpool see him, though no marginals there. But in some of the Midlands and northern seats May was targeting, he doesn't strike me as the right kind of Tory. Would he really buoy the party in Wales? Could he be a serious, wipe-out style, liability in Scotland?)
As a controversial figure within the party, could he create serious fissures within it? (Possibly unhealable if we believe certain newspaper front pages with respect to the Scottish party! But then there is the Gove issue, the internal class warfare that seems to have been taking place post-Cameron, and so on. The risk the Tory party would be taking by selecting him would not just be how the party is seen by the voters, but the coherence of the party itself.)
If I was more financially secure (I'm not) I'd be inclined to let Corbyn try and be PM and destroy himself.
He wouldn't last long and the Tories would be back in office soon enough, but would need an extra term or so to clear up the damage.
The move wouldn't be to try to do a full term, it would be to move into Number 10, get his photo taken on the doorstep wearing a nice suit, have meetings with Merkel and Macron where everybody makes serious faces, and get the voters used to the idea of him being Prime Minister.
Once in office he'd want an election, which he could get either by asking the Tories to vote for one like May did with hers, or by calling the DUP poofs and goading into them into voting him down on a popular issue.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Ah come on. Appreciate you're shocked and upset, but don't be a sore loser. This is the first time Labour has gained seats in twenty years. Can you imagine that? Chuck in all the gloating on here we've taken. Twenty years of shit, abuse and going backwards.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Ah come on. Appreciate you're shocked and upset, but don't be a sore loser. This is the first time Labour has gained seats in twenty years. Can you imagine that? Chuck in all the gloating on here we've taken. Twenty years of shit, abuse and going backwards.
We're entitled to enjoy it a bit.
@Casino_Royale is simply pointing out that 48 hours ago there were Labour moderates on here slagging of Corbyn. Not because they thought he couldn't win (though they did think he wouldn't win) but because they actually didn't agree with his policies.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
Ah come on. Appreciate you're shocked and upset, but don't be a sore loser. This is the first time Labour has gained seats in twenty years. Can you imagine that? Chuck in all the gloating on here we've taken. Twenty years of shit, abuse and going backwards.
We're entitled to enjoy it a bit.
Fair enough.
It's weird to see Labour doing even better than 1997 in some places, and even worse than 1983 in others.
Ruth Davidson is a brilliant anti-everything campaigner. She can be anti-independence and anti-London Tory polices on Europe and your friends and allies in the wood pellet-cum-Irish flag burning party. But has Davidson ever been popular when she's been FOR something?
She used to be really 'for' Tessy. That went well.
To all those who think this result is going to change Brexit...
In ten days or so the Government is going to have to sit down with the EU. If the EU had sense, which they don't, they would soften their position as the UK obviously is more likely to compromise and they have a chance to get a better deal. Instead, they will push out their ludicrous demands for ECJ jurisdiction etc.
What do you think will be the result of this? When faced with the reality of the EU position, what do you think the public will say? Labour are on record as saying FOM cannot continue and the polls indicate that not even remainers want it.
Suddenly, all this stuff about 'soft' brexit will come into focus - the only 'soft' brexit is EEA and that is unacceptable to parties who got pretty much 90% of the votes in the election. Otherwise, a deal has to be done and nobody is going to accept the EU terms. Suddenly Corbyn's plan to grant EU residents unilateral rights will fall over, because people will realise that UK residents will NOT get this in return, and in any event Corbyn's rights do not meet the requirements of the EU.
Nothing has changed. It seems all that is meant by 'soft' brexit these days is a wish that there has to be a deal, because we don't really want to face the alternative. But what happens when it becomes clear very quickly that no deal is going to happen because the EU demands are unreasonable? How does Corbyn answer to the reality of 'there must be a deal'?
Would not be amazed to see May 20 points ahead in the polls in 3 months time. Strange times.
I find it hilarious you're celebrating these results, with gusto, when only the day before yesterday you refused to cast a ballot for Labour because you thought Corbyn was a disaster.
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
I am celebrating the humiliating defeat of a disastrous PM who was seriously offering up the possibility of inflicting sustained, long-term damage to the British economy and the living standards of millions of British people. I think that it is absolutely fantastic that the Tories lost their majority. All the more so because it was totally unexpected. And I really can't believe Labour won Warwick & Leamington.
I do understand why you see things differently, of course.
so what... it was a UK election , you are so one eyed its getting very irritating.
Of course it was a UK election.
I am not complaining that Ruth Davidson "won the election" for May, but it is a useful and interesting fact to discuss
The election killed off two big SNP memes: England is moving inexorably rightwards as Scotland moves left; and England's result is the only one that affects a Westminster election.
On Thursday we saw a higher percentage of people in England vote for the most left-wing manifesto on offer than Scots; and it's only thanks to Scottish Tory MPs there's a Tory government.
I would not be surprised if Labour was again the biggest Scottish party in Westminster elections in the relatively near future.
I think that SNP support could rapidly fall away now.
I can't claim that this is the overall result I wanted, but the strengthening of pro-Union parties is a very big consolation. Had the Tories won say, 40 more seats in England, while the SNP took 56 again, then it's hard to see how the Union would endure.
Yes, that's fair.
I live in hope that by the time the next GE is held, by some miracle, Jeremy Corbyn will no longer be Labour leader, because at the moment I'd put him favourite to win it.
You're a clever bloke, the tories need to learn that they have to have a coherent plan and not just smear their opponents. They tried it with UKIP and Cameron walked the plank now they tried it with Corbyn. The conservatives need a long look at themselves and ask why they're struggling. They assumed kippers would come rushing back but people have long memories and don't like being called racist fruitcakes.
Comments
The Central Belt seats are coming back to Labour. They’ll take most of them next time.
People might like his showmanship - hard to tell.
Blaming Timothy or Hill is like blaming a navigator for a car crash.
Yes they didn't help but Theresa May's hands were on the wheel.
The response to him inside Europe ranges from active hate to total disdain. That is not a good place from which to begin Brexit talks.
Cameron
Osborne
Hague
May
Gove
This is the cause of their current pain.
Which politicians do we have that fit the criterion? A lot more than conventional wisdom would suggest. But it would take senior figures in all parties to do the initial secret talks, run the risk of leaks - and almost all of the figures you might think of (Major, Blair, Cable) are probably too toxic as a 'brand'.
The LibDems might have been a position to discuss this, but they also have 'baggage'.
It's worth thinking about though, surely?
But given we've just tried the safe pair of hands candidate, Imkeen to give him a go. Let Mrs May steady the ship for a few monhs then pass over.
I'm trying to think - has Boris ever lost an election? I think he has won every time he has ever stood...
On topic, welcome back to David, but the proposal for a constiutional convention does feel a bit like adjusting the system to clear the way for a specific proposed candidate. I see Ruth's attraction for Tories, but having a leader who isn't in Parliament is clearly inconvenient (whih is why Khan wouldn't have been an option if we were now trying to resolve a post-eleciton meldown), and leisurely tinkering with the internal arrangements while May's zombie government rides into the valley of death isn't going to be a good look.
Labour, meanwhile, needs to be statesmanlike, something Jeremy is very good at, as his first post-election interview showed, and extend the Shadow Cabinet with some centrists. No need to be nasty to May: let her stumble on, and concentrate on offering a calm alternative government. The tabloids have fired all their guns at Jeremy and the bullets bounced off: going on about alleged IRA cosiness in the 70s yet again in N months/years is just going to look silly. There will come a point when Tory messing about will annoy everyone to the point that giving Labour a chance will feel the natural option to most voters.
I could see a role for Starmer and some of the other sensible Labourites (by which I mean pretty much anyone the general public has heard of other than Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott) in a two year GONU dedicated to delivering on the negotiations and nothing else. But I can't see that Labour could (or should, looking at their narrow party interest) accept that.
Plus, who else in Westminster can do this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhxilSeFqMI
Flexible ideology? Tick. Showmanship? Tick. Widely disliked? Not trusted? Unproven? Inexperienced? Desperately needs support? Tick tick tick!
Other than Hague they've all destroyed themselves?
They might offer a choice between a deal and full membership including the euro and Schengen.
Perhaps the Tories can take advice from their new allies on how to keep a lid on their headbangers & psychos (get them elected and stuff their mouths with gold it would appear).
I can't claim that this is the overall result I wanted, but the strengthening of pro-Union parties is a very big consolation. Had the Tories won say, 40 more seats in England, while the SNP took 56 again, then it's hard to see how the Union would endure.
https://twitter.com/guardiananushka/status/873448578613735428
The Brexiteers know that May has been in the grip of the headbangers since her coronation.
Every announcement and decision has been made to appease them. And she got spanked.
Now they are terrified a new leader will finally tell them to shut up
DUP tail wagging the Tory dog
In this day and age it is not possible for any Government to run a country ( even if it does it well ) without alienating an ever larger number of voters .
Conservatives can say well on Thursday we got an increased vote share of 43% of the vote but many of those were not pro Conservative votes but voters frightened into voting Conservative out of fear of Corbyn .
But, there's no iron law to say there'll be a further 4-5% swing to Labour, if another election were held in a year or two, and that they'd capture the further 60 or seats they'd need to be sure to govern.
Anything can happen.
If a decision to have an election has passed the commons, which is now the means by which it is disssolved, no, she can't.
Why go for supply and confidence? The DUP would never vote to have Corbyn as PM or abstain and thereby allow it.
Mr. B2, the EU referendum should've been easily won. For all the justified criticism of May, the loss for Remain in that vote was just as shocking. They had the broadcast media, the vast majority of the political establishment, and most of business on-side.
There is, as others have said, a lesson to be drawn about being positive over trying to frighten people.
A Zoomer offering advice on "how to keep a lid on their headbangers & psychos"
Pleased to see Lorna apparently helped elect a Tory in Stirling.
Great work.
No such change passed.
In any event, I doubt this is true.
His fate was irrevocably tied to Cameron's. Cameron and Osborne destroyed themselves.
But Boris is still much better!
I genuinely think Trump may be a threat to American democracy.
I can't imagine him accepting an election defeat... It's easy for me to imagine him inciting riots etc.
Boris won't give away the family silver because someone flattered him.
Boris won't endanger national security by accident/to settle a score with someone.
Boris won't funnel enormous amounts of money to his own companies to enrich himself.
https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/873006735040147458
Edit. Being put under house arrest during the clusterfuck election inadvertently inoculated him. He's also a Remainer, which is what is needed now and reasonably competent, unlike May, Johnson and Gove
The only part that's a bit vague is that in the no-confidence case, it's not quite clear what it would take to make Jeremy Corbyn caretaker Prime Minister; If he can make a case that he can clearly get a majority then he definitely gets the job, and if it's obviously impossible then he probably doesn't, but there's a fuzzy area in between where he probably couldn't get the DUP to vote for his Queen's Speech, but you never know.
Johnson can turn out a mean article and once wrote articles arguing for two opposite opinions on the same day.
I mean he's Eton, demonstrably dishonest, and yet people don't seem to mind...
£350m a week would be a political masterstroke and I really think would have won May a crushing majority.
If you offer them unvarnished truth, they will not.
I live in hope that by the time the next GE is held, by some miracle, Jeremy Corbyn will no longer be Labour leader, because at the moment I'd put him favourite to win it.
Yesterday you seemed to think there might be a small amount of negatives amongst the obvious garden of glory of such an informal alliance.
Have you now relaised that there is no flaw in such a pact between the Conservatives and the DUP?
Your forecast of a large Tory majority the day before, was an indicator that it wasn't going to happen
- perhaps the cause of it not happening.
The question was on Royal refusal. To which my answer was correct.
There is little to fear electorally now. Politician have a limited shelf life. Boris already looks a bit like yesterday's man. You normally get about 10 years in the limelight. Boris is on nine.
If anything he is perfectly placed to draw the final curtain on the project his mates started all that time ago.
But I don't think the Tories have much choice now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpsyiNSDxbI
Turns out you don't have many scruples and concerns about the hard Left at all, other than they don't win elections.
He wouldn't last long and the Tories would be back in office soon enough, but would need an extra term or so to clear up the damage.
A real shame, because I had a lot of respect for SO.
I think May, Hill and Timothy are all childless. Coincidence?
Just to be clear that's "laugh out loud" not Loyal Orange Lodge.
I think these people deserve a proper Labour government.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/why-donald-trump-isn-t-the-successful-businessman-he-claims-to-be-us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html%3Famp
Johnson is a talented writer who can really turn a phrase.
We're entitled to enjoy it a bit.
And while it has been mentioned that May has achieved a 1923 result:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923
it shouldn't be forgotten that a year after that the Conservatives won a huge landslide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1924
Would the EU treat him as a serious negotiating partner? (I guess the EU would just have to learn to, but people will be bearing this in mind when considering supporting him.)
As leader of the party, would he be a net vote loser and potentially a brand-retoxifier? (There are certain parts of the population he can reach that other Tories can't, so I don't understand why more use wasn't made of him on the campaign trail, rather than the narrow presidential-style focus on May. If there'd been a Boris Bus with the - relatively cheap, over 5 years with inflation - £350m/week NHS promise on it, I think the Tories would have a majority right now. But he also turns some swing voters right off, and he is yet another posho. May has got through to people that Cameron couldn't. Plenty of these voters would find Boris PM unpalatable. As a tool deployed correctly I'm sure he wins votes, as figurehead of a national campaign he could well be a big net negative.)
Could his obvious upper-class Englishness and divisiveness cost the Tories in key regions or nations? (We know how the folk of Liverpool see him, though no marginals there. But in some of the Midlands and northern seats May was targeting, he doesn't strike me as the right kind of Tory. Would he really buoy the party in Wales? Could he be a serious, wipe-out style, liability in Scotland?)
As a controversial figure within the party, could he create serious fissures within it? (Possibly unhealable if we believe certain newspaper front pages with respect to the Scottish party! But then there is the Gove issue, the internal class warfare that seems to have been taking place post-Cameron, and so on. The risk the Tory party would be taking by selecting him would not just be how the party is seen by the voters, but the coherence of the party itself.)
(Based on comment FPT, sorry for repetition)
Once in office he'd want an election, which he could get either by asking the Tories to vote for one like May did with hers, or by calling the DUP poofs and goading into them into voting him down on a popular issue.
It's weird to see Labour doing even better than 1997 in some places, and even worse than 1983 in others.
https://youtu.be/2OlKFhEEWUM
In ten days or so the Government is going to have to sit down with the EU. If the EU had sense, which they don't, they would soften their position as the UK obviously is more likely to compromise and they have a chance to get a better deal. Instead, they will push out their ludicrous demands for ECJ jurisdiction etc.
What do you think will be the result of this? When faced with the reality of the EU position, what do you think the public will say? Labour are on record as saying FOM cannot continue and the polls indicate that not even remainers want it.
Suddenly, all this stuff about 'soft' brexit will come into focus - the only 'soft' brexit is EEA and that is unacceptable to parties who got pretty much 90% of the votes in the election. Otherwise, a deal has to be done and nobody is going to accept the EU terms. Suddenly Corbyn's plan to grant EU residents unilateral rights will fall over, because people will realise that UK residents will NOT get this in return, and in any event Corbyn's rights do not meet the requirements of the EU.
Nothing has changed. It seems all that is meant by 'soft' brexit these days is a wish that there has to be a deal, because we don't really want to face the alternative. But what happens when it becomes clear very quickly that no deal is going to happen because the EU demands are unreasonable? How does Corbyn answer to the reality of 'there must be a deal'?
Would not be amazed to see May 20 points ahead in the polls in 3 months time. Strange times.
I do understand why you see things differently, of course.