Back in June, after Corbyn’s LAB got 4 seats closer to the Tory MP total than Gordon Brown’s party seven years earlier, there was a massive euphoria around the Labour leader. He could do no wrong and was reported to have said he expected to be PM by last Christmas. That, of course, didn’t happen and he then revised that to Christmas 2018.
Comments
And maintaining a precarious lead over don't know.
Did the BES polling a few weeks ago not confirm that people thought Labour had the "best policies" at last year's election, and that the party leaders was the only aspect that put the Tories in front?
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
... anyone who does any of that will be better than May. Which is basically anyone.
Its not just as if skipping the debates was the only mistake. May's mistake was total and overwhelming hubris. What positive story did she have to tell in the manifesto?
'ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative online sample of 2,030 adults aged 18+ on 2 to 4 March 2018. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.' - Guardian liveblog.
This reminds me a lot of Labour between 2007 and 2015. When Gordon Brown was in, we heard that "anyone" would be better than him, until Ed Miliband showed that wasn't the case. Then during Miliband's time, we heard that "anyone" would be better than him, until the selection of "moderate" candidates in the 2015 contest showed that also wasn't the case. It's very easy to just rubbish the incumbent and think "anyone" would do better, but often rather harder to think of someone specifically.
I'd call that small rather than clear, but there we are.
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/971023712031035392
Its the same principle as never mentioning "Gordon Brown" and "economic genius" in the same sentence.
A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
She really did shit the bed.
In the run up to the 2015 general election Dave had a 15% lead over Ed which is even more impressive when it wasn’t a binary choice question.
(Interestingly though, the Tories are only down 1 point from the 44% they got this time last year - it's Labour massively up from 28% that's made the difference.)
If she had debated she would have been criticised for 'jumping when the LotO' said so.....not showing leadership by refusing to debate......doing what the man told her to and so on and so on......meanwhile she emerges from the BREXIT speeches ahead of Corbyn and his cunning stunt.....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/06/jose-mourinho-joins-rt-as-world-cup-pundit
"Pro Performance"
"New Style, New Swagger"
Impressive!
Ah, sorry no - my mistake. It wasn't Theresa May, it was an ad for TRESemme.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_drivers_from_Colombia
Any PM looking at that data would have been tempted to do the same thing - particularly when the road ahead was looking so difficult to navigate.
Was it cynical? maybe. Was it understandable under the circumstances? yes. Did it work? Obviously not.
Mrs May should remember what happened to the last mandateless PM who promised no snap election then ruined their reputation when they came close to calling a snap election.
I don’t think this has been shared on PB before but this is what one of Gordon Brown’s ministers wrote at the time.
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43302864
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.
“I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”
https://order-order.com/2018/03/06/no-boris-didnt-say-england-might-pull-world-cup/
But his recent u-turn was ineffective. If he had got it right and delivered something of substance, then he could have changed the dynamic. But in the end, he came out with an empty soundbite that no-one could really explain or understand.
2. If her team hadn't considered Jezza deciding to attend and then what to do they deserve to be sacked.
(2 may contain some irony)
https://www.lecho.be/economie-politique/europe-general/L-affaire-Selmayr-affaiblit-la-Commission-europeenne/9988180
https://tinyurl.com/y9swszco
EDIT: about 8% chance he's going to kark it in those three years, according to US Social Security life table.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/971056633131552769
Description (video broken): https://dangerousminds.net/comments/dennis_hopper_and_his
Video: http://video.houstonchronicle.com/Dennis-Hopper-performs-the-Russian-Dynamite-Death-Chair-Act-30871511
Edit to add I fully expect the plant to be closed with Brexit blamed as Peugeot will close the easiest plant to close...
That wont go down well with the legion of LD remainers on this site.
For example if we had a presidential system Callaghan may have beaten Thatcher in 1979
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/irish-hard-border-soft-brexit-technology-theresa-may-a8242461.html
"But what is clear is that the “Smart Border 2.0” proposals do involve physical infrastructure and border guards."