Just eleven daysafter polling

prosaver

Ballard wrote: »

I don't have a problem with changing PM mid term but in fairness it was different with Blair/Brown as Blair made it clear that he would stand down before the next election so the electorate knew what they were voting for.

And the electorate knew this is the proceeder when we vote any party in..
Anyway may called a election cant see the problem

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
*There is a risk here that admitting that we won't walk away to WTO weakens our hand a bit, but lets me honest here; May's only bluffing about that anyway and the EU knows it. Her husband & peers would lose a fortune if we went WTO.

I disagree. If you float the option of walking away in public, you have to be prepared for that possibility in the negotiations, otherwise you look weak.

Walking away would be bad for us; an annoyance for Germany; and disastrous for countries like Ireland. We should target the underbelly to see how unified the EU27 really are, when it comes to the loss of individual jobs in member states.

The EU does not deal very well with ailing countries. A look at the current Greece crisis (yet again) makes that only too clear.

mark5

Herzlos wrote: »

That's what we thought about Labour seats up here, and they pretty much all vanished overnight. It's really dangerous to assume that seats are safe because people may either not bother voting or making a protest vote.

What were the majorities though?

Where I am in Wales, it's typically labour 18,000/ Conservative 4,000, it wouldn't surprise me if this narrowed but I can't see labour losing 7000 seats and the conservatives gaining 7000 at the same time.

If the majority is 2/3000 then I can see how it happens.

Ballard

prosaver wrote: »

And the electorate knew this is the proceeder when we vote any party in..
Anyway may called a election cant see the problem

I don't understand your first sentence but I think that we're broadly in agreement. My point is simply that comparing the two issues isn't comparing like with like.

kinger101

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I get this, but then the snap election should have been called when Cameron stood down (or as soon as the Conservatives appointed a leader).

Not 9 months down the road.

There is an argument that a PM stepping down should be an automatic process for a General Election to be held

Well, given this has happened twice recently, I think you're right. We supposedly elect MPs rather than PMs. Policy wise, Brown's government was broadly a continuation of Blair's. Certainly more so compared to what May's government will be compared to Cameron's. I think it might be better if a deputy PM stood on the basis of continuing the manifesto (not that anyone sticks to them) at the time of each election. Dissolving Parliament because a different faction of a same political party has taken over is a distraction.

This whole thing has made a fiasco of the fixed term Parliament act. Labour know this will most likely result in the return of a more right wing government, but probably say it as the only way of removing Corbyn (though that isn't a certainty). They need to get their ducks lined up on what they'll do next.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

I disagree. If you float the option of walking away in public, you have to be prepared for that possibility in the negotiations, otherwise you look weak.

Indeed; I doubt anyone actually believes that May will walk away.

Herzlos

mark5 wrote: »

What were the majorities though?

Where I am in Wales, it's typically labour 18,000/ Conservative 4,000, it wouldn't surprise me if this narrowed but I can't see labour losing 7000 seats and the conservatives gaining 7000 at the same time.

If the majority is 2/3000 then I can see how it happens.

Before the last GE, I thought it would be impossible for my local MP to be displaced, and then they nearly all were. I agree that a 14,000 vote lead is a lot, but how many people in the constituency chose not to vote?

kabayiri

In our swing seat we have a choice between a fairly inexperienced Tory MP (not exactly a heavyweight) and a LibDem candidate who is just not liked by many. She wasn't liked last time either, so I'm not sure why they think the outcome will be different.

Ballard

My borough (Old Bexley & Sidcup) had been Conservative since Ted Heath scraped home by 133 votes in 1950 (there was a boundary change in 1983 so that was for Bexley). The conservative vote here has since increased to around 16,000. There's zero chance of James Brokenshire not being returned as my MP but that's the way it goes.

IveSeenTheLight

prosaver wrote: »

If labour didnt call one when blair step down, do u really think the conservatives would?
Seems a bit silly if they did:)

kabayiri wrote: »

Did you argue this point when Brown took over from Blair?

I'd quite happily see Corbyn replaced as PM by someone else competent within a Labour government...the problem would be finding someone!

This GE is being paraded as a TM v JC as to who is the best option for PM.

Personally I would have preferred DC continued and followed through with the referendum result.

Regardless of which party is in charge, I think if the PM steps down for any reason, then they have not been invited by the queen to form a government and as such democratically, there is an argument for a GE in that circumstances, regardless of whom is the party in government.