snap general election?

Pross

From today's election broadcast it seems May is pegging her hopes on Brexit being a big issue for people after the manifesto went down like a lead balloon, it all seems to be back to concentrating on the fear of Corbyn taking on responsibility for the negotiations.

I think we can forget that idea of a 100 seat margin. Even Stevo is seeming far less confident than two weeks ago!

Stevo_666

I'm confident we will win. But the polls suggest a landslide isn't on the cards. No doubt if that happens, some lefties will try to claim that the absence of a landslide is somehow a win for them.

Matthewfalle

If Theresa does win will that send Kajjagoogoo man into fits of ecstatic ejaculation?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm confident we will win. But the polls suggest a landslide isn't on the cards. No doubt if that happens, some lefties will try to claim that the absence of a landslide is somehow a win for them.

Hang on, she called an election, not because she had too but to bolster her majority, a win is a win, very true but if she doesnt get an increased majority, then she ll look an idiot.

norvernrob

May is coming across pretty poorly on the Sky News debate, it could be worse though she could be Dianne Abbott.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm confident we will win. But the polls suggest a landslide isn't on the cards. No doubt if that happens, some lefties will try to claim that the absence of a landslide is somehow a win for them.

Hang on, she called an election, not because she had too but to bolster her majority, a win is a win, very true but if she doesnt get an increased majority, then she ll look an idiot.

Given the current majority of 12 or so, it's going to be quite hard to get a smaller majority.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm confident we will win. But the polls suggest a landslide isn't on the cards. No doubt if that happens, some lefties will try to claim that the absence of a landslide is somehow a win for them.

Hang on, she called an election, not because she had too but to bolster her majority, a win is a win, very true but if she doesnt get an increased majority, then she ll look an idiot.

Given the current majority of 12 or so, it's going to be quite hard to get a smaller majority.

Considering she could nt explain how or why she has changed her mind over brexit, the calling of the election and couldnt give a single yes or no answer to Paxman, thats not beyond the realms of possibility,
she was shocking, brexit aside, she was laughed at several times by the audience and the midwife and teacher blew May away with her claims on increased funding,
though i guess she has done better than Andrea Leadsom would have.

surrey_commuter

I had always liked TM but she has proven to be clueless about business, economics and politics.
Maybe a lazy twat like Boris would have been a better option?

slowmart

It seems capability, effectiveness and gravitas have evaporated from British politics. OK it was never in abundance but fuck me we are truly fucked. Rudd as home secretary, Boris as Foreign Secretary and May as PM. And don't get me started on the Labour party who are populated by idiots with even less capability and clearness of vision.


Unfortunately I don't have Stevo's view that May is now a shoe in. May made Jezza look statesman like and the trajectories of each politician is correlated and God help the Torys if Corbyn builds a momentum ( No pun intended)

It's Mays to lose and it looks like its slipping for her incapable grasp.....

The political cartoons tomorrow should be worth a look

ugo.santalucia

Opinions aside, last night Corbyn depicted a vision for Britain, whether you like it/believe it it's up to you.

On the other hand, May didn't depict a clear future... she talks of ringfencing budgets and adjusting figures, but there is no vision... I don't know why people want to vote for her, other than a feeling of "the least worst on the market". Her Britain is not a happy place, not much to look forward there.
She talked of "opportunities" without mentioning one of them... I am also glad Paxman nailed her on the habit of changing side whenever convenient and how that is the exact opposite of the bloody difficult woman she tries to portrait.

I sincerely hope people have still hope and choose to have a future

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

Corbyn, on the other hand, seems to have compromised with the PLP to put together a manifesto they can deliver if elected.

Leopard and spots. He may seem to have done this but if he gets in...

He can't without PLP backing. He's got a lot more b****rds to deal with than John Major had. And his b****rds are closer in philosophy (centre left) to the opposition, where Major's were hard right and less likely to vote with Labour.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I had always liked TM but she has proven to be clueless about business, economics and politics.
Maybe a lazy fool like Boris would have been a better option?

She's always been a bit sh!t.

Always.

bendertherobot

So, what number of seats is enough to demonstrate strong and stable and, if she fails to get enough and has to go, do we have another election again?

rick_chasey

We done the "never seen such a big slide in polling in the run up to an election before" chat yet?

The way the boundaries are drawn Tories need more than 5 points to make any gains.

rick_chasey

Then there's the, if Corbyn doesn't do too badly, does he stay too?

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

So, what number of seats is enough to demonstrate strong and stable and, if she fails to get enough and has to go, do we have another election again?

surely a net gain of 20 seats is the bare minimum

no need for an election - the men in grey suits will give us the clown prince as our new PM

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then there's the, if Corbyn doesn't do too badly, does he stay too?

the hard left will keep him there long enough to get the rule changes through.

200+ he can claim he just needs longer to get his message across

rick_chasey

Up to a point - a political commentator friend of mine once pointed out, and I was quite convinced that the amount of pain made by the humiliation of defeat is rarely foreseen by leaders of the losing side, and so plans to stay on usually quickly unravel.

ugo.santalucia

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then there's the, if Corbyn doesn't do too badly, does he stay too?

Who else? I don't see a queue of credible leaders

rick_chasey

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then there's the, if Corbyn doesn't do too badly, does he stay too?

Who else? I don't see a queue of credible leaders

ABC.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then there's the, if Corbyn doesn't do too badly, does he stay too?

Who else? I don't see a queue of credible leaders

ABC.

John McDonnell?

rick_chasey

Anyone in the shadow cabinet dies with Corbyn.

Jez mon

On a more serious point:

How do labour change their leadership selection process to avoid another Corbyn?

Once a more moderate candidate is in place, how do they avoid people thinking it's a Tory who accidentally wore a red rosette one day.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

On a more serious point:

How do labour change their leadership selection process to avoid another Corbyn?

Once a more moderate candidate is in place, how do they avoid people thinking it's a Tory who accidentally wore a red rosette one day.

ABT will be a decent vote winner next election, assuming they are moderate.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

On a more serious point:

How do labour change their leadership selection process to avoid another Corbyn?

Once a more moderate candidate is in place, how do they avoid people thinking it's a Tory who accidentally wore a red rosette one day.

No need - the moderates just need to stop helping left-wingers onto the ballot.

They will change the rules to make it easier for a left-winger to get on the ballot

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Then there's the, if Corbyn doesn't do too badly, does he stay too?

the hard left will keep him there long enough to get the rule changes through.

200+ he can claim he just needs longer to get his message across

Agree, I'd be amazed if he steps down voluntarily.

surrey_commuter

anybody else read TM's comment that if she loses just 6 seats then JC will be PM and that is not a risk that anybody should take.

Have these people no idea of irony or taking responsibility for their own actions?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

anybody else read TM's comment that if she loses just 6 seats then JC will be PM and that is not a risk that anybody should take.

Have these people no idea of irony or taking responsibility for their own actions?

She'll still be PM if she loses 6 seats, no?

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

anybody else read TM's comment that if she loses just 6 seats then JC will be PM and that is not a risk that anybody should take.

Have these people no idea of irony or taking responsibility for their own actions?

Given the central theme of the campaign has been that we need a steady hand due to the uncertainty around brexit (a crisis that is 100% the Tories own doing), it would seem not!

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

anybody else read TM's comment that if she loses just 6 seats then JC will be PM and that is not a risk that anybody should take.

Have these people no idea of irony or taking responsibility for their own actions?

She'll still be PM if she loses 6 seats, no?

Project Fear isn't it.

If she loses 6 seats I doubt she will still be leader of the Tory party.

I was thinking that if JC becomes PM then it is entirely her fault and if that is so terrible she should have thought about that before calling an election