the snap general election thread

lisyloo

Of course government have the ability to change behaviour with incentives or punitive measures, doesn't mean that they can
A) get away with it politically
exactly predict behaviour and unintended consequences
C) time it precisely

antrobus

Interesting piece from Jonathan Freedland in the Grauniad.

The real gamble for Theresa May would have been to wait until 2020
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/18/theresa-may-general-election-gamble-hard-brexit

The headline almost says it all.

He does make two interesting points;

With Brexit due to come in 2019, it means that the next GE can now wait until 2022, rather than 2020. Which is something that might matter when we get to 2020.

It allows May to break free from the Cameron-Osborne 2015 manifesto and "set out her own stall".

and says the following;

Think what the Tories and their press allies did to Ed Miliband, Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot. Then consider how they will feast on Corbyn.

Which might be why he thinks "she is almost certain to win".

P.S. 'Feast on Corbyn' has a nice ring to it.:)

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..Calling a GE almost a year after assuming the office to occur almost two years after taking the position makes me think she is either politically manipulating the system for the good of her party as opposed the country,...

It is, of course, entirely possible that the good of the country and the good of the Conservative Party amount to the same thing.:)

In fact, I strongly suspect that every political party believes that these two things always operate in tandem.

Mistermeaner

I'd back may in hand to hand combat over Corbin as well... and if you look carefully no one has ruled that out yet

wotsthat

A large majority would mean she'd be able to compose a cabinet without reference to how anyone voted in the referendum.

Hopefully Boris Johnson would be toast.

Spidernick

antrobus wrote: »

It is, of course, entirely possible that the good of the country and the good of the Conservative Party amount to the same thing.:)

In fact, I strongly suspect that every political party believes that these two things always operate in tandem.

I strongly suspect that every other party does not believe that the good of the country and the good of the Conservative Party amount to the same thing. I even more strongly suspect that you did not write what you meant!

JP08

I wonder if the "young" vote, who apparently weren't interested in turning out for the Referendum but then didn't like the result, might be more in evidence this time as a result - might make for some unexpected movements.

Malthusian

vivatifosi wrote: »

Why wouldn't you hold a debate when your competitors are so lacklustre?

Four words: "I agree with Nick." Remember that? TV debates are such a crapshoot they managed to reinvent Nick Clegg as a great statesman.

A game of table football would be less random and reveal more about which would make a better leader of the Government. Any politician that agrees to a TV debate is an idiot.

zagubov

This has been a good time for the government to bury the news about RBS getting sold at a loss to us. I wonder what else they'll try to sneak past us while this distraction is going on.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

zagubov wrote: »

This has been a good time for the government to bury the news about RBS getting sold at a loss to us. I wonder what else they'll try to sneak past us while this distraction is going on.

Really?
That's not exactly accurate, is it?

"Our policy remains to return the bank to private hands as soon as we can achieve fair value for the shares, recognising that fair value could well be below what the previous government paid for them," he said.
"We must live in the real world and make decisions on the future of our holding in RBS in the best interest of taxpayers."
However, he added that the government is "not at present actively marketing [its] stake in RBS".

http://www.cityam.com/263115/rbs-shares-rise-philip-hammond-admits-governments-stake-may