So, that worked out well for Theresa May.
I wonder if she is anticipating a discrete visit from some men in gray suits?
The woman has more lives than a cat. She should have gone after the 2017 election disaster. After Grenfell. After the conference fiasco. After failing to put her deal before parliament in December last year. Somehow she manages to cling on to office, if not to power. That slipped through her fingers quite some time ago.
This is an entirely self inflicted calamity, from beginning to end. A better deal was available. Endless better deals were available. The EU have been perfectly aware that there is a real risk their 'problem child' might actually follow through on its threat; they have negotiated in as much good faith as one possibly can with people who think that "Brexit means Brexit," "No deal is better than a bad deal" and "Red, white and blue Brexit" are useful contributions to any sort of a debate.
It didn't help when May painted herself into a corner with all her red lines and - as yesterday demonstrated - has signally failed to actually convince her own party of the merits of her case. May's peculiar genius has been to craft such an awful deal that even her own frit party can't bring themselves to support it.
I think it is hysterically funny that she delayed voting in the hope of avoiding defeat. Clearly, she has no idea about the mood of her party, and neither do her whips. They actually thought they would be able to argue, bribe or bully a few rebels into line. They had no idea just how utterly without credibility she is, and how despised her deal is.
The woman seems to have a remarkable ability to make things worse for herself by wasting time. In 2017 she triggered Article 50, then decided to lose time with her vanity election; now, facing defeat on her deal in December, she prevaricated, delayed, and finally went down to defeat. I feel a bit like Corbyn's internal enemies must have felt in the second half of 2016, in the throes of the Chicken Coup: "Why the Hell won't you just take the hint and go?"
Don't ever, anyone, accuse Corbyn or Labour of wasting parliament's time with the Motion of No Confidence. We could have done all this before Christmas, if May had the guts and any sort of awareness of what was actually going on in her party.
Showing posts with label Theresa May. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theresa May. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 January 2019
Saturday, 7 October 2017
Theresa May: Going, Going ...
So, Theresa May is in a bit of trouble. Tories are scheming and plotting - which they do on any day that ends in a 'Y' - and rumours are swirling that she is going to be 'persuaded' to 'do the right thing' for Boris Johnson's career the good of the country. Now, I don't know about you, but I find it difficult to reconcile the terms 'Tory government' and 'the good of the country,' but I don't think what the mean is that all 316 MPs should take the Chiltern Hundreds. It looks like there is a leadership spill coming over the ridge. I'd better get me some popcorn.
For the plotters on all sides, there's a very complex calculation involved.
On the one hand, Boris is likely to bide his time and wait until Brexit is done. Too much like hard work for Boris. Also, he's sad things he might not be able to deliver on and he'd probably rather not have to do that. But those who don't want Boris sense a bit of an opportunity. Boris's stock is low at the moment - a lot of gaffes and disloyalty. He's part of the problem, not the solution. So if May goes quickly, yup, someone will have to Do Brexit, but it may be the only way to fend off Boris.
(Of course, that's pretty much what Theresa May thought and look where it has got her. Broken on the rocks and with the Great White Shark circling her.)
The crucial question for May is not whether Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps think she should quit. Of course they do. Goes without saying. But if the sickness is spreading throughout the wider party and the donors, she's in real trouble. From yesterday's guardian, a comment from Tory donor Charlie Mullins:
So that must be worrying for her. These people aren't likely to throw money at a party they regard as doomed.
Even if May survives in the short term - and I think she will, more due to the lack of spine in the Conservative party as a whole, rather than her own reserves of courage or obstinacy - she's in a pretty grim position. The Tory papers are against her, and every misstep will be blown up as a fresh crisis which raises new questions about her leadership. Believe me, on this topic if nothing else, we lefties know of what we speak. You think May is having a rough time of it? Look at Corbyn's leadership up until June 2017 ...
It's likely May's premiership will be remembered as a slightly surreal interlude between Cameron's blustering incompetence and ... well, whatever comes next. It is unlikely she can expect historical rehabilitation as Gordon Brown can anticipate. So all that's left is the halcyon days early on. Cast your mind back to her first PMQs, and recall her imitation of Margaret Thatcher - "Remind him of anybody?"
Yes, Theresa, you DO remind us of Margaret Thatcher now. The broken, post Poll Tax, post-Howe version, waiting for the unsmiling, bland little men in the background to tell her it was all up. Six months ago you were unassailable and riding towards a triumph; now you're just waiting to be put out of your misery.
"It's a funny old world," Thatcher said, after announcing her resignation to her Cabinet. I bet you agree.
For the plotters on all sides, there's a very complex calculation involved.
On the one hand, Boris is likely to bide his time and wait until Brexit is done. Too much like hard work for Boris. Also, he's sad things he might not be able to deliver on and he'd probably rather not have to do that. But those who don't want Boris sense a bit of an opportunity. Boris's stock is low at the moment - a lot of gaffes and disloyalty. He's part of the problem, not the solution. So if May goes quickly, yup, someone will have to Do Brexit, but it may be the only way to fend off Boris.
(Of course, that's pretty much what Theresa May thought and look where it has got her. Broken on the rocks and with the Great White Shark circling her.)
The crucial question for May is not whether Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps think she should quit. Of course they do. Goes without saying. But if the sickness is spreading throughout the wider party and the donors, she's in real trouble. From yesterday's guardian, a comment from Tory donor Charlie Mullins:
Charlie Mullins, the founder of London-based Pimlico Plumbers, said May must leave because she was being bullied and undermined by Johnson.(Am I the only one struck by the profound oddness of the soultion - the victim has to go, rather than the bullies?)
He said: “She has got to go for her own sake. It is getting embarrassing. If this was a boxing match, the fight would have been stopped. She has been put in a position where she is being bullied, she is being intimidated, they are making her life hell. These are Conservative people who are destroying this woman and it needs to stop.”
So that must be worrying for her. These people aren't likely to throw money at a party they regard as doomed.
Even if May survives in the short term - and I think she will, more due to the lack of spine in the Conservative party as a whole, rather than her own reserves of courage or obstinacy - she's in a pretty grim position. The Tory papers are against her, and every misstep will be blown up as a fresh crisis which raises new questions about her leadership. Believe me, on this topic if nothing else, we lefties know of what we speak. You think May is having a rough time of it? Look at Corbyn's leadership up until June 2017 ...
It's likely May's premiership will be remembered as a slightly surreal interlude between Cameron's blustering incompetence and ... well, whatever comes next. It is unlikely she can expect historical rehabilitation as Gordon Brown can anticipate. So all that's left is the halcyon days early on. Cast your mind back to her first PMQs, and recall her imitation of Margaret Thatcher - "Remind him of anybody?"
Yes, Theresa, you DO remind us of Margaret Thatcher now. The broken, post Poll Tax, post-Howe version, waiting for the unsmiling, bland little men in the background to tell her it was all up. Six months ago you were unassailable and riding towards a triumph; now you're just waiting to be put out of your misery.
"It's a funny old world," Thatcher said, after announcing her resignation to her Cabinet. I bet you agree.
Thursday, 5 October 2017
May's bracelet
It has been observed that Theresa May unaccountably took to the stage for her big speech to the Conservative conference wearing a bracelet featuring art work by Frida Kahlo, communist artist and (because women must always be defined by who they sleep with) occasional girlfriend of Leon Trotsky.
After being handed a P45 mid-speech by an audience member, a chronic coughing fit and then having the sign behind her fall to bits, it might seen a minor faux pas.
The Telegraph, heroically, tries to justify it:
I imagine she wore it because she had little idea who the artist was and just thought it looked stylish and interesting. If she had a clue, I doubt she'd have been so silly as to wear it for the biggest speech of her life.
Just another fail in a day - a whole conference - of fails.
After being handed a P45 mid-speech by an audience member, a chronic coughing fit and then having the sign behind her fall to bits, it might seen a minor faux pas.
The Telegraph, heroically, tries to justify it:
After divorcing her husband Diego Rivera, Kahlo painted Self Portrait with Cropped Hair in 1940. The picture, showing her wearing a black suit and with a very short haircut, was widely interpreted to mean that Kahlo was sending a strong message to men: I am independent and I don't need you.I prefer a simpler explanation.
Might Mrs May have been willing the 'naughty boys' in her party to understand the very same?
I imagine she wore it because she had little idea who the artist was and just thought it looked stylish and interesting. If she had a clue, I doubt she'd have been so silly as to wear it for the biggest speech of her life.
Just another fail in a day - a whole conference - of fails.
Wednesday, 21 June 2017
Negotiations “haven’t proceeded the way we would have expected.”
The Tories can't even impose their will on a bunch of Irish God Botherers they outnumber 30 to 1.
How the Hell are they going to beat Europe into submission?
Agreeing a deal with a party that is basically on your side shouldn't be so bloody difficult, woman!
Theresa May said she'd thrash Labour ... She didn't.
She said she's bend the DUP to her will ... She didn't.
She says she'll negotiate a deal of absolute awesomeness with Europe ... Given her track record, how do you think that will work out?
Still, third one's a charm, eh, Tessa?
Jeremy Corbyn is far better at talking to Irish people!
How the Hell are they going to beat Europe into submission?
Agreeing a deal with a party that is basically on your side shouldn't be so bloody difficult, woman!
Theresa May said she'd thrash Labour ... She didn't.
She said she's bend the DUP to her will ... She didn't.
She says she'll negotiate a deal of absolute awesomeness with Europe ... Given her track record, how do you think that will work out?
Still, third one's a charm, eh, Tessa?
Jeremy Corbyn is far better at talking to Irish people!
Friday, 16 June 2017
Why Corbyn matters and why Labour will win (Possibly repetitive)
Forgive me, dear reader, if I am repeating myself. I am engaged in a lot or arguing across the internet and the nature of troll slaying is that it is repetitive. But occasionally I say something that I may not have said before, or which bears repeating.
First, with regards the meme being put about that Labour would have won if pretty much anyone but Corbyn had been leader. Let us dispatch this ideas swiftly. First, and most obviously, there would probably not have been an election if anyone but Corbyn had been leader. Labour would not have been so riven with dissent and would not have appeared so utterly helpless (while in fact being poised for a devastating counter-strike).
Further, a different leader would never have put forward such an audacious manifesto or campaigned so successfully, motivated so many canvassers in the constituencies or inspired young voters to roll on up to the polling station. More people voted for Corbyn's version of the Labour Party than voted for Milliband or Brown or even Blair in 2005 - either in terms of vote share or raw numbers. And turnout was particularly high among the young. He managed to bring people to the polls to vote for Labour, far more successfully than in their last three attempts. And the ground war waged by Labour activists was astonishing, by all accounts, and crucial in winning the battles in key constituencies.
Finding an extra 3.5 million votes, and robbing the Tories of their absolute majority just two years after they won it, proving people will vote for a 'leftwing' manifesto, humiliating May and de-fanging the Mail and the Sun ... That's not a bad run for someone we were assured was going to absolutely destroyed, buried, annihilated.
Not only is it likely that Labour will romp home at the next election, they will likely win a majority that will keep them in power for another decade. Strategically, that's far more significant than the two year zombie administration May is likely to be recalled for.
Now, as for the prospects of the Tories. Below are ten off-the-top-of-my-head reasons why they can expect to be trounced at the next election, which will liekly be within 2 years.
There simply isn't any obvious reason to think they will win the next election, or even just tread water.
They blew it.
First, with regards the meme being put about that Labour would have won if pretty much anyone but Corbyn had been leader. Let us dispatch this ideas swiftly. First, and most obviously, there would probably not have been an election if anyone but Corbyn had been leader. Labour would not have been so riven with dissent and would not have appeared so utterly helpless (while in fact being poised for a devastating counter-strike).
Further, a different leader would never have put forward such an audacious manifesto or campaigned so successfully, motivated so many canvassers in the constituencies or inspired young voters to roll on up to the polling station. More people voted for Corbyn's version of the Labour Party than voted for Milliband or Brown or even Blair in 2005 - either in terms of vote share or raw numbers. And turnout was particularly high among the young. He managed to bring people to the polls to vote for Labour, far more successfully than in their last three attempts. And the ground war waged by Labour activists was astonishing, by all accounts, and crucial in winning the battles in key constituencies.
Finding an extra 3.5 million votes, and robbing the Tories of their absolute majority just two years after they won it, proving people will vote for a 'leftwing' manifesto, humiliating May and de-fanging the Mail and the Sun ... That's not a bad run for someone we were assured was going to absolutely destroyed, buried, annihilated.
Not only is it likely that Labour will romp home at the next election, they will likely win a majority that will keep them in power for another decade. Strategically, that's far more significant than the two year zombie administration May is likely to be recalled for.
Now, as for the prospects of the Tories. Below are ten off-the-top-of-my-head reasons why they can expect to be trounced at the next election, which will liekly be within 2 years.
- They are in office but not in power. They will get blamed, fairly or unfairly, for every bad thing that happens. This is what did for Brown when he took over.
- The Public mood is against them. Look at the polls since the election. Labour in the lead. Unless they do something dramatic and interesting, the Tories will continue to flounder. A 'better manifesto' will be viewed cynically.
- Their reputation for competence is shredded. They went in with a majority, came out without one. They look like idiots.
- Years of scheming and undermining await - assuming May tries to cling on for a couple of years, her potential successors will be constantly plotting against her and each other. Again. look at how that worked out for Brown.
- History is against them. Cameron managed to defy political gravity by increasing his vote share and number of seats. I don't think any other administration has managed to do that in recent history. Almost inevitably, the party in power loses ground - even Thatcher did worse in each election than in the one before.
- The Mail Failed. And the other news media that were so shrilly anti-Corbyn. They threw everything at him and it did not work. What do you think they have left to attack him with? The 'Terrorist sympathiser' and similar lines have been used, they wll be even less effective next time.
- Labour are getting stronger. With less disunity and negativity, and with a stronger front bench, Labour will look more voteable. A team lead by Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott probably did worry a few voters. As more 'traditional' Labour MPs get involved, the party will look less like a demented leftwing cult and more like a genuine contender.
- Labour have lost the 'loser' image. It is likely some people did not vote / voted for other parties because they did not think Labour would win. Almost all the polls suggested Labour were due for a hammering. Yet they still came from twenty points behind to within three points of winning more votes. If there is an election in the next couple of years (likely) then Labour's vote will get out in droves, and the dispirited Tory vote will be more inclined not to bother.
- Ground game. Labour have a superb team of activists. The oft derided Momentum foot soldiers turned out to be a) just normal people, not scary Trots and b) willing to actually get out there and knock on doors and get the vote out. There will be even more of them next time, as the 'One More Push!' message gets rolled out. Where will the Tories get a activists like that?
- Time for a change. Whether the next election is in two years or five, the will have been in power for a long time and people will have become very sick of them.
There simply isn't any obvious reason to think they will win the next election, or even just tread water.
They blew it.
Saturday, 10 June 2017
Post Election thoughts, Round 2 - Possibly Repetitive
The full scale of the awful situation that has engulfed the Tories is only just starting to sink in.
Probably, the only thing worse than calling a vanity election and losing your majority would be calling a vanity election, losing your majority and still being left to deal with the mess you've made of everything.
I give them two years, max. They won't have a choice. Every by-election, defection or resignation will drive them into calamity.The longer the Tories cling on to power, the worse their situation is going to get.
They will look more and more shambolic and hapless.
People are going to get sickened by the sight of them limping weakly from disaster to catastrophe, too frit for another election as they're (can you believe this) scared of Jeremy Corbyn!
The Tories are waning. Labour, on the other hand, are waxing.
They can sit back and occasionally tweet about how different things could have been, if only ... They will likely have a stronger front bench within a couple of weeks, as Corbyn has a reshuffle and some big names agree to work with him.
Corbyn can carry on spreading his hopey-changey message to da yoof and exhort them not to give up - "One more push! Tomorrow belongs to us!"
The right wing media have shot their bolt. They threw everything at Corbyn. Next time, what more can they say? So whatever effect the relentless negativity had will be diminished.
The Tories have no message. The said they were strong and stable, and ended up in a coalition of chaos.
What can they say to the electorate that will be believable and which will entice voters to them? They got nothing, because the electorate will look at any offer and say, "Why didn't you say that in 2017?"
Worse, Brexit beckons. Negotiations are due to start in a week! How are the Conservatives - disorganised, demoralised and divided - going to make anything other than a mess of them?
Only Labour can look forward to another election with any enthusiasm. The Tories will likely slip further away from power - why would people want to vote for them more in 2018 or 19 than they did in 2017?
My only concern is Corbyn's age. If the Tories hang on until 2019, he'll be 70. Will he have the energy for another big campaign? Will he have to hand on the leadership, and just play the figurehead role in the campaign?
A bit of me is wondering if that is why the Conservatives will cling on to the bitter end - hoping that something will turn up to help them, and hoping the irascible Corbyn will stop ruining things for them.
Put to fear by a hapless vegetarian. Can it get any more humiliating for the part of Churchill, MacMillan and Thatcher?
Probably, the only thing worse than calling a vanity election and losing your majority would be calling a vanity election, losing your majority and still being left to deal with the mess you've made of everything.
I give them two years, max. They won't have a choice. Every by-election, defection or resignation will drive them into calamity.The longer the Tories cling on to power, the worse their situation is going to get.
They will look more and more shambolic and hapless.
People are going to get sickened by the sight of them limping weakly from disaster to catastrophe, too frit for another election as they're (can you believe this) scared of Jeremy Corbyn!
The Tories are waning. Labour, on the other hand, are waxing.
They can sit back and occasionally tweet about how different things could have been, if only ... They will likely have a stronger front bench within a couple of weeks, as Corbyn has a reshuffle and some big names agree to work with him.
Corbyn can carry on spreading his hopey-changey message to da yoof and exhort them not to give up - "One more push! Tomorrow belongs to us!"
The right wing media have shot their bolt. They threw everything at Corbyn. Next time, what more can they say? So whatever effect the relentless negativity had will be diminished.
The Tories have no message. The said they were strong and stable, and ended up in a coalition of chaos.
What can they say to the electorate that will be believable and which will entice voters to them? They got nothing, because the electorate will look at any offer and say, "Why didn't you say that in 2017?"
Worse, Brexit beckons. Negotiations are due to start in a week! How are the Conservatives - disorganised, demoralised and divided - going to make anything other than a mess of them?
Only Labour can look forward to another election with any enthusiasm. The Tories will likely slip further away from power - why would people want to vote for them more in 2018 or 19 than they did in 2017?
My only concern is Corbyn's age. If the Tories hang on until 2019, he'll be 70. Will he have the energy for another big campaign? Will he have to hand on the leadership, and just play the figurehead role in the campaign?
A bit of me is wondering if that is why the Conservatives will cling on to the bitter end - hoping that something will turn up to help them, and hoping the irascible Corbyn will stop ruining things for them.
Put to fear by a hapless vegetarian. Can it get any more humiliating for the part of Churchill, MacMillan and Thatcher?
Post Election Thoughts, Round 1 - Whither Now, Tessa?
Well, that was interesting.
I remember, back in 2010, when Cameron managed to ... um ... not win an election, I predicted that the Tories would live through some sort of grim equivalent of the ordeal Labour went through in the 80s. I turned out to be wrong, massively, as the Tories managed to form a solid coalition with the Lib Dems and managed to survive for ten years and went on to win an outright majority ...
But, undeterred, I now confidently predict the Tories will find themselves in a situation curiously reminiscent of the 1990s. And the worst bit of the 90s at that. Not the good bit where they won an election.
Some thoughts for the stunned mullets on the right, particularly those desperately trying to spin this result as a victory for Theresa May.
Fair summary of the situation, yes? Nothing too controversial or partisan there.
So, the question is, how do you manage to rebuild your party brand so the next election - in 12 months? 18? 24? - isn't a thrashing on the scale of 1997?
Remember John Major? A basically sound bloke, whose majority was whittled away over the course of his second term. Eventually, he was left propped up by the Ulster Unionists, but even then he was continually embarrassed in the House. He had to endure continual leadership intrigues, eventually having to suffer the humiliation of asking the party if he was more or less popular than John Redwood! His party was divided against itself over Europe. You see the parallels? By 1996, the Major administration was a feeble, zombie government, shambling on wards, hoping that something would turn up to reverse its fortunes. Nothing did. You'll recall what happened in 1997, I think.
It took the second Major government five years - 1992 to 1997 - to reach the sorry pass May finds herself in. She's starting from the 'shambling zombie' situation Major ended up in.
(And at least he managed to win an election!)
So you've got a couple of years to sort yourselves out, Tories. But I think you'll spend it mired in recrimination, feuding, leadership intriguing, and wallowing in the humiliation of continual defeat and gibbering in terror at the prospect of facing the electorate again.
I remember, back in 2010, when Cameron managed to ... um ... not win an election, I predicted that the Tories would live through some sort of grim equivalent of the ordeal Labour went through in the 80s. I turned out to be wrong, massively, as the Tories managed to form a solid coalition with the Lib Dems and managed to survive for ten years and went on to win an outright majority ...
But, undeterred, I now confidently predict the Tories will find themselves in a situation curiously reminiscent of the 1990s. And the worst bit of the 90s at that. Not the good bit where they won an election.
Some thoughts for the stunned mullets on the right, particularly those desperately trying to spin this result as a victory for Theresa May.
- Your party has no inherent majority. You had one of course, but you threw it away.
- You're relying on a bunch of Irish Nationalists to give you a working majority.
- Even then, you've only got a tiny majority.
- Your leader is humiliated, her authority is broken, her credibility is gone.
Fair summary of the situation, yes? Nothing too controversial or partisan there.
So, the question is, how do you manage to rebuild your party brand so the next election - in 12 months? 18? 24? - isn't a thrashing on the scale of 1997?
- Can the conservatives offer the country "strong and stable" leadership? No, because the coalition has a tiny majority and every time an MP is sick, or mysteriously absent because they don't want to be associated with a piece of toxic legislation, the they risk defeat. They are at the mercy of events and mavericks.
- Can they offer a strong leader that can run a presidential style campaign? No. You tried that, and it didn't work very well. May was awful. Who could replace her? BoJo would be a disaster. Rudd has a tiny majority and is going to be focused on that? Gove is a joke.
- Can you offer a vision that you can sell? No, you don't seem to have any. There was no vision or ambition or hope in 2015. How are you going to find it by 2019 and sound credible? You can't. That's why the Conservative campaigns are so relentlessly negative. They have nothing good to say about themselves.
- Can you rely on the opposition destroying themselves. I doubt it. They did there best in 2016, and the still managed to turn May's coronation into a bloodbath. Corbyn managed to re-invent himself as everyone's favourite batty old uncle, and some big names will be tempted back onto the front bench now that they see power is actually within their grasp.
Remember John Major? A basically sound bloke, whose majority was whittled away over the course of his second term. Eventually, he was left propped up by the Ulster Unionists, but even then he was continually embarrassed in the House. He had to endure continual leadership intrigues, eventually having to suffer the humiliation of asking the party if he was more or less popular than John Redwood! His party was divided against itself over Europe. You see the parallels? By 1996, the Major administration was a feeble, zombie government, shambling on wards, hoping that something would turn up to reverse its fortunes. Nothing did. You'll recall what happened in 1997, I think.
It took the second Major government five years - 1992 to 1997 - to reach the sorry pass May finds herself in. She's starting from the 'shambling zombie' situation Major ended up in.
(And at least he managed to win an election!)
So you've got a couple of years to sort yourselves out, Tories. But I think you'll spend it mired in recrimination, feuding, leadership intriguing, and wallowing in the humiliation of continual defeat and gibbering in terror at the prospect of facing the electorate again.
Thursday, 20 April 2017
Oh, an election, is it? Some random thinks.
So ...
Could these two things be at all related?
Because otherwise May's decision makes no sense to me. She has a majority. She is doing well in the polls and popular. There was an election just two years ago, and a referendum. The boundary changes have not yet gone through.
An early election only makes sense if she is anticipating a major crisis - either substantial charges being laid around the 2015 election, or some massive economic upheaval. Because the annihilation of Labour in 2017 will probably mean the end of Corbyn and his replacement with someone who might (big might, given the talent pool) appeal more to floating voters.
And 2022 is a long way away, and if the parliament elected in 2017 runs its course, the Conservatives will have been in power for 12 years. So even if she manages to see off Labour in 2017, she may have brought forward Labour's return to power closer by a term or two.
But, feck me, these Tories are cynical. Theresa May has been adamant about not calling an early election (inspite of ticking off Gordon Brown back in the day for being un unelected PM). then she decides she needs to have one after all. Because she needs a mandate to be able to give the country "Strong and stable leadership" - a banal phrase she used about 5000 times in her first attempt at an electioneering speech.
Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words. The soundbite of the nascent Tory campaign may be "Strong and stable leadership." But how does "No election until 2020 ... oops, I've changed my mind" equate to stability? Or a chancellor who abandon's a key part of his budget about five minutes after he's finished his speech? And how can a leader forced to go to the country three years early, because she can't manage her MPs, claim to be strong?
Someone needs to give Theresa May a dictionary so she can look up what the words she is saying mean.
With regards to the outcome, the problem with FPTP is that there is very little correlation between votes cast and seats won at a national level. Majorities of seats are won on pluralities of the vote.
It's hard to see the Conservatives losing, but maybe Corbyn has authentic video footage of Theresa May beheading kittens or something. Equally, I can't envisage the Tories winning a majority of a hundred, in spite of what the polls say. They just don't feel right to me. It's entirely gut based but I suspect the pollsters have over compensated for 2015's screw up.
I think Labour will hang on to a lot more than people realise. Remember, Labour DOOM was predicted at the local elections last year, and failed to materialise. It might, but I think they will hold onto about 220 seats.
It is also important to remember that the result in 1983 was distorted by a split in the left vote - Labour + SDP/Liberal Alliance polled more than the Conservatives, but as they were often stealing votes from each other, they were both thrashed. There isn't that factor as the Blairites have (thankfully) not gone nuclear and split. So the Tories will need a much bigger swing to produce anything like a 1983 result.
I think the Lib Dems will enjoy a bit of a renaissance. They had 50+ seats up until the 2015 election and will be eyeing them again. As the official anti-Brexit party, they can expect to draw a lot of support from Remainers of all sides.
Scotland will more or less stay the same. The SNP may lose a couple of seats and the the Tories and Lib Dems pick up a couple there.
The problem for the Tories is that for every seat the Lib Dems win back (assuming they win any back!), the Tories need to take one somewhere else.
If Labour is a bit more robust than expected, suddenly increasing May's majority becomes very difficult. If Labour cling on to 220 seats, and the Lib Dems reach 20, suddenly May may even be looking at a REDUCED majority.
I can't imagine that happening, but unless Labour go into a meltdown and the Lib Dems don't surge, it is hard to see how she can make significant gains.
So, some predictions (Bearing in mind I got the 2015 election completely, utterly wrong):
- Theresa "I won't call a snap election" May calls a snap election.
- The CPS has indicated up to 30 individuals (including MPs) may be charged with breaches of election expenses laws.
Could these two things be at all related?
Because otherwise May's decision makes no sense to me. She has a majority. She is doing well in the polls and popular. There was an election just two years ago, and a referendum. The boundary changes have not yet gone through.
An early election only makes sense if she is anticipating a major crisis - either substantial charges being laid around the 2015 election, or some massive economic upheaval. Because the annihilation of Labour in 2017 will probably mean the end of Corbyn and his replacement with someone who might (big might, given the talent pool) appeal more to floating voters.
And 2022 is a long way away, and if the parliament elected in 2017 runs its course, the Conservatives will have been in power for 12 years. So even if she manages to see off Labour in 2017, she may have brought forward Labour's return to power closer by a term or two.
But, feck me, these Tories are cynical. Theresa May has been adamant about not calling an early election (inspite of ticking off Gordon Brown back in the day for being un unelected PM). then she decides she needs to have one after all. Because she needs a mandate to be able to give the country "Strong and stable leadership" - a banal phrase she used about 5000 times in her first attempt at an electioneering speech.
Talk is cheap; actions speak louder than words. The soundbite of the nascent Tory campaign may be "Strong and stable leadership." But how does "No election until 2020 ... oops, I've changed my mind" equate to stability? Or a chancellor who abandon's a key part of his budget about five minutes after he's finished his speech? And how can a leader forced to go to the country three years early, because she can't manage her MPs, claim to be strong?
Someone needs to give Theresa May a dictionary so she can look up what the words she is saying mean.
With regards to the outcome, the problem with FPTP is that there is very little correlation between votes cast and seats won at a national level. Majorities of seats are won on pluralities of the vote.
It's hard to see the Conservatives losing, but maybe Corbyn has authentic video footage of Theresa May beheading kittens or something. Equally, I can't envisage the Tories winning a majority of a hundred, in spite of what the polls say. They just don't feel right to me. It's entirely gut based but I suspect the pollsters have over compensated for 2015's screw up.
I think Labour will hang on to a lot more than people realise. Remember, Labour DOOM was predicted at the local elections last year, and failed to materialise. It might, but I think they will hold onto about 220 seats.
It is also important to remember that the result in 1983 was distorted by a split in the left vote - Labour + SDP/Liberal Alliance polled more than the Conservatives, but as they were often stealing votes from each other, they were both thrashed. There isn't that factor as the Blairites have (thankfully) not gone nuclear and split. So the Tories will need a much bigger swing to produce anything like a 1983 result.
I think the Lib Dems will enjoy a bit of a renaissance. They had 50+ seats up until the 2015 election and will be eyeing them again. As the official anti-Brexit party, they can expect to draw a lot of support from Remainers of all sides.
Scotland will more or less stay the same. The SNP may lose a couple of seats and the the Tories and Lib Dems pick up a couple there.
The problem for the Tories is that for every seat the Lib Dems win back (assuming they win any back!), the Tories need to take one somewhere else.
If Labour is a bit more robust than expected, suddenly increasing May's majority becomes very difficult. If Labour cling on to 220 seats, and the Lib Dems reach 20, suddenly May may even be looking at a REDUCED majority.
I can't imagine that happening, but unless Labour go into a meltdown and the Lib Dems don't surge, it is hard to see how she can make significant gains.
So, some predictions (Bearing in mind I got the 2015 election completely, utterly wrong):
- Conservative - 345 ... Well done, Tessa, you put us through that, for a few extra seats. LOSER.
- Labour 215 - This leaves Corbyn in a precarious position. He's avoided the apocalypse, but has lost a lot of seats. He'll hold on to get the leadership election changes passed at conference, and then step down in 2018, which was pretty much the plan all along. WINNER, surprisingly.
- Lib Dems - 20. Just enough to stoke talk of a revival, but not enough to actually be one. SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WINNERS AND LOSERS, appropriately.
- SNP - 50. They maintain ther stranglehold on Scotland, but the support for independence is clearly ebbing. PHRRYIC VICTORS, again appropriately. Us Scots don't do outright victory.
- Ireland and others - 20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
