Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
kactus

May seeks snap election

Recommended Posts

My prediction is that after the election there is going to start another debate on the necessity to reform the electoral-system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 11:47 AM, marcus said:

He is unpopular within the caucus, because Corbyn is anti-establishment. He disturbed the system. This is similar to Trump and Saunders, whose own party reps toed the line and went for the established candidates. 

Corbyn was quite popular amongst Labour voters when he was elected. He received more than 60% in the second election as well, when the failed coup happened. His popularity amongst voters has changed slightly due to the constant attacks by the sour MP's who can't stand someone being elected as the head of the party who is not part of the established system. However, the number of Labour memberships have increased. 

I'm not sure why you're attacking Corbyn when your anger should be towards the members who are doing everything in their power to ruin the party's chances of winning the election. Is it any of Corbyn's policies or stances that you're against? 

 

No, he is unpopular within caucus because he is a weak, ineffective person who is intent on taking Labour out of any possibility of winning an election for a long time.  Or at least as long as he is leader.  His only popularity is in Labour riding delegates ONLY, who managed to keep him in his position for a brief time.  They may or may not face reality in June,  when the British electorate will confirm the Labour caucus position that he is a dangerous extremist  fool.  I fully expect Corbyn will not resign after Labour is crushed.  He has an astonishing ego to accompany profound incompetence.

 

His popularity among voters has not changed 'slightly', they see Corbyn as being wholly unsuited to lead the country.  He has given numerous demonstrations of that incompetence.  Labour membership only increased as Corbyn supporters worked hard to keep him as leader.  That means less than nothing in a general election.

 

The Labour Party MPs are not trying to ruin Labours chances of getting elected, they are fed up with Corbyn, and failed to rid themselves of this heavy anchor around their collective necks.  It wasn't just a few of them in public and open revolt, it was 80% of his caucus.  Now many of them are not running again, because they don't want to work with this idiot.  Time to find another job, and let Corbyn field a slate of like minds to get their asses kicked in the JUne general elction.

 

Like me, the British electorate rejects Corbyns far left strident nonsense.  The Toroes aplaud it, because it ensures them a fatter majority.  Go Jeremy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If and when Labour is soundly defeated he really has no alternative but to go but is there really any obvious successor to lead the party anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There just shouldn't be "snap elections" or they should be the last resort to solve a political deadlock. If an election-term is 5 years that is how it should be, no matter what the polls say.

Imagine if Donald Trump could call an early presidential-election the moment his approval-ratings began to improve. That just wouldn't be right, would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

...Imagine if Donald Trump could call an early presidential-election the moment his approval-ratings began to improve. That just wouldn't be right, would it?

 

This is not possible in the United States, but it has happened in Finland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 10:02 AM, Wilber said:

What if someone who campaigns against Brexit durning the election wins? What is then the mandate?

Not possible.  May was noncommittal, and the only other one who could possibly(though it is impossible) win is Corbyn.  He was on the stay' side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is not possible in the United States, but it has happened in Finland. 

It is not possible that his approval ratings could improve?  Could they get worse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 3:13 PM, -TSS- said:

If and when Labour is soundly defeated he really has no alternative but to go but is there really any obvious successor to lead the party anyway?

He had no alternative but to quit after Brexit was approved, but Corbyn is so far up his own colon he did not recognize his duty.  He won't quit.  Labour is going to be devastated in the June election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

There just shouldn't be "snap elections" or they should be the last resort to solve a political deadlock. If an election-term is 5 years that is how it should be, no matter what the polls say.

Imagine if Donald Trump could call an early presidential-election the moment his approval-ratings began to improve. That just wouldn't be right, would it?

In the UK, the PM must have a 2/3 majority to call an election so early.  May got 98%, which means nearly all the Opposition voted with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, overthere said:

It is not possible that his approval ratings could improve?  Could they get worse?

When you have Trump, Tillerson, and Pence all signing different songs over an issue as important as the current issue regarding NK, I assume they well could get worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Canada you also have had elections which have been critisized for being held unnecessarily early. Wasn't the 2000 election one of such? The Liberals had a sound majority from the previous election and the the next election was not due until 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is not possible in the United States, but it has happened in Finland. 

Not sure which event you are refering. I think you must mean when President Kekkonen had his 6-year term since 1968 nearing its completion he had a law passed in Parliament in 1973 to extend his term by further four years until 1978 and cancel the election of 1974.

He promised not to run for President again in 1978 but later on he broke that promise and was yet re-elected in 1978. Only when his health deteriorated and he suffered from dementia he had to resign in 1981.

Not a very proud piece of our history. Kekkonen was semi-authoritarian playing the Soviet-card saying that he is indispensable and without him the Soviets would invade.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Not sure which event you are refering. I think you must mean

 

Yes...and more, as Parliament can be dissolved at any time by the president for early elections.

This is not possible in the U.S., as federal elections are mandated and scheduled by constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That used to be the case that the President could dissove Parliament on his own initiative and Kekkonen did that twice but the Finnish constitution has been changed so that the President may dissolve Parliament only if the Prime Minister requests it.

After Kekkonen who was President for 25 years there was the introduction of two 6-year term-limits as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must really be said that Theresa May couldn't hope for a better campaign-manager for the forthcoming election as Jean-Claude Juncker. Namely, every time he makes an angry and all too often very childish statements about Brexit the support for the Tories jumps up a notch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 6:25 AM, bcsapper said:

I think it's pretty basic politics.  She needs a mandate to carry on with the Brexit stuff, and she doesn't want to be constantly referred to by her opponents as someone who was not voted into power as she does that.  She knows she is going to win, so why not get it over with now?

Of course, people have known they were going to win before...

Or maybe the plan is to not get elected and lose to the Labour Party or some other political party who will then try to scrap Brexit. There are lots of money people who do not want Britain to leave the the EU. Hey, you never know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2017 at 3:34 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trudeau won't be seeking a snap election anytime soon...he would be turfed.

If the electorate were stupid enough to put him in once they will probably be stupid enough to put him back into power again. The way Canadians keep voting in liberals, Greens, and the NDP  these days what chance does a conservative party have. The electorate have gone mad. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, taxme said:

Or maybe the plan is to not get elected and lose to the Labour Party or some other political party who will then try to scrap Brexit. There are lots of money people who do not want Britain to leave the the EU. Hey, you never know.  

Corbyn would probably cost Britain far more than Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2017 at 5:52 PM, overthere said:

He had no alternative but to quit after Brexit was approved, but Corbyn is so far up his own colon he did not recognize his duty.  He won't quit.  Labour is going to be devastated in the June election.

Corbyn should never have been the leader.  According to some friends/relatives in the U.K. who are devotedly Labour, Corbyn only won the leadership because conservatives joined in order to vote him - knowing that Labour couldn't win with him as leader.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, there was some 10 quid-fee you had to pay in order to register as a voter in the Labour-leadership-election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 7:19 PM, overthere said:

Blair has been gone for 10 years.  The remainder of the fractured Labour caucus is no more Blairites than Trudeaus caucus is Chretienites.

 

Corbyn got 60% of a leadership vote in a process that was totally rigged.  In reality, his own caucus has overwhelmingly disowned him, and Labour is specifically in wholesale disarray because of Corbyn.  Last year he had 75% of his own caucus reject him.  Now it is much worse.  The Commons MPs voted 509 to 13 to hold an election, which means that Corbyns entire caucus either voted with the ruling Cons, or abstained.  Since there is absolutely no gain possible for any party 'led' by a man so profoudlky unpopuar except for a tiny slice of far elft loons- that vote is perhaps the worst indictment of Labour by Labour  seen in decades.

See below reply on the claim that it was rigged. If anything the party machinery purging members for little to no reason seemed far more suspect. You say it's wholesale his fault, in which case any replacement would surely lead to better fortunes, right? Except today's poll has Con 45%, Lab 32%, and it's not an outlier, so let's put it into context:

32% Corbyn (recently polled)
30% Miliband (2015 GE, actual - turnout accounted for)
29% Brown (2010 GE, actual - turnout accounted for)
25% Khan (recently polled)
24% Cooper (recently polled)
23% Blair (recently polled)

Your point about Labour voting for a general election is entirely misplaced - no opposition could live down the idea they were afraid to go to the electorate. The PLP have rebelled significantly in the past, but this is not even a case of that, and therefore holds zero implications as to Corbyn's leadership qualities. Corbyn started off with over 75% of the PLP rejecting him, because as a part of the Socialist Campaign Group faction, in a party grown to be steadily dominated by liberals during the New Labour period, his views had been well and truly marginalised. 

On 5/13/2017 at 3:53 PM, scribblet said:

Corbyn should never have been the leader.  According to some friends/relatives in the U.K. who are devotedly Labour, Corbyn only won the leadership because conservatives joined in order to vote him - knowing that Labour couldn't win with him as leader.  

Your friends/relatives are misinformed. Even removing everyone but those members that were there before Corbyn was in contention, post election analysis shown he won that bracket (albeit much less decisively, but then these were those members who were happy when Labour had disowned their leftist platform - very much expected). The registered supporters (which incidentally was a scheme implemented by the Blairites hoping to dilute the (leftist) membership/union's influence only served to make was a victory into a landslide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn is unelectable and the Labour-party knows it full well. They have to find a new charismatic leader for the elections in 2022. Probably by the time when the Tories will have been in power for 12 years and people will be fed up with them almost anyone who isn't batshit insane would lead Labour to a victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2017 at 1:01 AM, -TSS- said:

Corbyn is unelectable and the Labour-party knows it full well. They have to find a new charismatic leader for the elections in 2022. Probably by the time when the Tories will have been in power for 12 years and people will be fed up with them almost anyone who isn't batshit insane would lead Labour to a victory.

One of the main reasons Corbyn was elected was because the policies he espoused had long been purposely kept off the table for Labour members/voters for decades (non-interventionist foreign policy, high-taxes for rich, a raft of nationalisations, interventionist economic policy) - if he can ensure he passes the McDonnell amendment (that stops the liberal-dominated PLP from screening out socialist parliamentarians standing for leadership) at the next conference I think the Labour movement will be happy to go along with the above, but if that fails I wouldn't bet on it. Labour is a product of its history and its recent history entailed a number of lessons:-

1) to stand on an undiluted socialist platform (Foot/Benn) is not a vote winner
2) to stand on a thoroughly diluted socdem platform (Blair) is a vote winner but is not worth winning
3) to stand on a somewhat diluted socdem platform (Miliband) is not a vote winner

So Labour have chose a diluted socialist platform (Corbyn) armed with polling to hand most of Corbyn's policies enjoy popular support. Their main concern post-defeat will be to ensure the liberals/PLP can't bar them from influence for another two decades, if not indefinitely. Corbyn has signalled himself - unusually - he won't be stepping down (likely until the amendment's passed) and will likely step-down of free will once September conference has been voted upon, and aid his successor (Clive Lewis?) to push for the same policies but with less baggage/hostility towards the media. 

The other reason for Corbyn's landslide is the 2015 election had laid bare Labour's dire predictament in terms of electability:- 

1) SNP's rise has effectively snookered Labour - the 50+ seats they had previously taken for granted were now remote possibilities, and the seats Labour would need to win in their place from the Tories were more remote than ever (demographic trends), even with a fairly milquetoast platform. 
2) The dearth of charismatic politicians with acceptable views for the wider membership meant a former policy-wonk with no business being Labour's leader won it.
3) The acceptance of free-market capitalism and the blame for its unravelling (financial crash) and the effects of that had been laid entirely at their doorstep.
4) The level of immigration from the EU had focused the UK electorate away from traditional topics they were strong on to matters they - like many of our continential social democrats are facing - are very weak on.  

With little chance of winning in 2020 (see the Conservatives had enacted the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act when it was convenient (unstable coalition) only to immediately disown it when it was expedient) I think Labour collectively felt this was the best time for a civil war.

Edited by DBlow
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...