the snap general election thread

zarf2007

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

This remains bizarre.

May lost her outright majority and I think has had to eat a not undeserved mouthful of humble pie. But, she did not lose the election.

Corbyn lost the election.

All his cronies may love him openly and vocally and some that wanted him out may now sit on the fence while it suits - but he did not win!

Corbyn and his deluded followers still cannot get their head around that. I also find it laughable that Corbyn is calling the tories nasty for personal attacks when his army of momentum thugs threaten anyone (including moderate labour MPs) who dare to criticise him.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

The rescue of Mrs. May's career. She's played the biggest political game and lost.

Still resides in no 10 though. Didn't resign. Arguably a more balanced HoC will produce a better outcome from Brexit. Than outright dominance from one particular party.

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Rescue of what precisely? If the UK sinks it won't be for the want of Mrs May trying that's a certainty. What it will highlight is the incompetence of those who simply play political games. Rather than do the job they have been elected to do.

So May wasn't playing political games when she called the election. I seem to remember she had a perfectly good majority at the time.

markharding557

Herzlos wrote: »

Because they have no interest in helping the Tories out of this mess - it'll a. turn them into a scapegoat and b. allow the Tories to claim victory.

What he wants, and has offered, is for the Tories to stand back and let him sort it as PM with a minority government.

I don't think Corbyn taking over as a minority government on 262 seats is doable or acceptable! Labour would have to negotiate with multiple parties and would be in a worse position than the Tories are now. Labour must win a election if they are to govern, an improved second place is not enough.

Malthusian

Hung parliaments always produce better outcomes. The less power a politician has, the less damage they do.

If you doubt this we could always pass an Enabling Act, appoint Michael Gove as Reichsführer and hope for the best.

Herzlos

Exactly. Why should a PM be able to do anything without negotiating with multiple parties (i.e. all of them)? They are all representatives.

This idea that you can only get stuff done if you have > 50% of the MP's is why we're in such a poor state. Lots of countries manage to run with coalitions of 2+ parties (IIRC Norway usually needs 3 to get to a majority).

antrobus

Herzlos wrote: »

Exactly. Why should a PM be able to do anything without negotiating with multiple parties (i.e. all of them)? They are all representatives.

This idea that you can only get stuff done if you have > 50% of the MP's is why we're in such a poor state. Lots of countries manage to run with coalitions of 2+ parties (IIRC Norway usually needs 3 to get to a majority).

Or Belgium. It can take months to get a coalition sorted out.:)

A_Medium_Size_Jock

antrobus wrote: »

Or Belgium. It can take months to get a coalition sorted out.:)

Holland too, who IIRC still haven't formed a coalition government yet after what now?
Four months?

P.S. - these countries have never AFAIK collapsed during the delay forming coalition governments either.
Just sayin'.

mrginge

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Holland too, who IIRC still haven't formed a coalition government yet after what now?
Four months?

P.S. - these countries have never AFAIK collapsed during the delay forming coalition governments either.
Just sayin'.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/talks-to-form-dutch-coalition-government-continue-1.3143549?mode=amp

ThinkingOutLoud_2

By Holland do you mean the Netherlands?