The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'
Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong?
whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'
To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.
On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.
The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.
Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.
(edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)
He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
Corbyn did get closer to the Tories in 2017 than Kinnock managed in 1992.
The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'
Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong?
whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'
To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.
On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.
The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.
Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.
(edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)
He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
Corbyn did get closer to the Tories in 2017 than Kinnock managed in 1992.
To put it in more context, Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did in 2010.
The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'
Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong?
whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'
To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.
On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.
The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.
Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.
(edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)
He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
Corbyn did get closer to the Tories in 2017 than Kinnock managed in 1992.
To put it in more context, Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did in 2010.
But in England & Wales he had quite a few more seats than Brown in 2010 and Kinnock in 1992. That was significant in the context of the SNP being a firm part of an Anti-Tory grouping.
There is Brexit itself, which flows from the decision of the Coalition Prime Minister to promise a referendum for purely short-term tactical reasons.
Whatever his reasons for calling it, any fault in the outcome belongs to the British public.
With respect(), that's nonsense - it treats the British public as though it were a coherent entity, not 46.5m individual registered voters. The fact that Leave won cannot be blamed on the 48%. That the vote was close cannot be blamed on any individual voter.
The mess we are in is caused by a lack of forethought from Cameron's government about what a Leave vote really meant and how it would be implemented.
Not so. Yes there should have been planning, and the government should have done better since, but my point was if someone opens a door and says don't go out there and lists all the reasons you shouldnt, and you do anyway, it's on you, not the person opening the door for better and fir worse.
As the result proved the EU was a major issue and a majority wanted out. Blaming Cameron for letting people vote is wrong headed whether one voted leave or remain. For how he campaigned , for the lack of prep? There's arguments to be had there. But not on the offering of the choice.
The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'
Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong?
whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'
To put it in context, only two PMs in the last 118 years have formed a government with fewer than 270 seats - Campbell-Bannerman in 1905 and Ramsay Macdonald in 1924. On the first occasion, it was a temporary measure pending an election, in the Second it was because the two Opposition parties, with very similar strength, had fought on a similar basic platform.
On two other occasions (in 1910) a party with between 270 and 280 seats formed a government. On those occasions the election was roughly a tie and there was a huge cohesive block of over 80 seats that would support one party.
The next lowest winning total, and the lowest in the age of universal suffrage, was 287 in 1929.
Corbyn didn't for all his bluster have a cohesive anti-Tory vote. He didn't top or really get close to 270 never mind 290. He was 55 seats behind the largest party. Although it wasn't a meltdown, it was still a distinctly underwhelming result. It was, to put it in context, rather worse than Kinnock's in 1992 and not ridiculously better than 2010.
(edit - to look at it another way, all non-abstentionist parties except the Conservatives and DUP add up to 314. The Conservatives alone outnumber them. To take power in these circumstances Corbyn would need one of four things to happen (1) The active co-operation of the Tories or DUP (2) Sinn Fein to take their seats (3) the Tories to abstain on all votes (4) hell to freeze over.)
He did not come close. I would say he looked silly pretending otherwise but (a) he always looks silly anyway because he is silly and (b) he didn't look half so silly as Theresa May did.
Corbyn did get closer to the Tories in 2017 than Kinnock managed in 1992.
To put it in more context, Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did in 2010.
But in England & Wales he had quite a few more seats than Brown in 2010 and Kinnock in 1992. That was significant in the context of the SNP being a firm part of an Anti-Tory grouping.
It's a UK election. Besides, Tories won 13 Scottish seats, Labour only 7.
The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'
Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong?
whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'
Corbyn did get closer to the Tories in 2017 than Kinnock managed in 1992.
To put it in more context, Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did in 2010.
But in England & Wales he had quite a few more seats than Brown in 2010 and Kinnock in 1992. That was significant in the context of the SNP being a firm part of an Anti-Tory grouping.
It's a UK election. Besides, Tories won 13 Scottish seats, Labour only 7.
That does not affect my point re- the SNP being a firm part of an Anti-Tory grouping!
The Tories could call the election on a slogan of 'Who Governs Britain?'
Yes, the precedent crossed my mind as I wrote the mildly encouraging post upthread. Why not try it, Theresa? What could possibly go wrong?
whatever happens it wont be Jeremy Corbyn.
I don't know he got remarkably close last times...
He did far, far better than expected but he didn't get 'remarkably close.'
Corbyn did get closer to the Tories in 2017 than Kinnock managed in 1992.
To put it in more context, Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did in 2010.
But in England & Wales he had quite a few more seats than Brown in 2010 and Kinnock in 1992. That was significant in the context of the SNP being a firm part of an Anti-Tory grouping.
It's a UK election. Besides, Tories won 13 Scottish seats, Labour only 7.
That does not affect my point re- the SNP being a firm part of an Anti-Tory grouping!
Extraordinary story about an autumn election but can't see it happening.
I'd want 20-1 I think.
To those who say they can't see it happening, I have a question: So, what kind of muddling through do you think will take place ? After all, some kind of vote has to take place in Parliament within 4 months.
Only option without an election is a very soft brexit [ versions of SM and CU with annual payments ]. The ERG will throw the toys out of their pram but May has enough votes including the opposition to ride them out. What the loonies do then, is the next question.
As the result proved the EU was a major issue and a majority wanted out. Blaming Cameron for letting people vote is wrong headed whether one voted leave or remain. For how he campaigned , for the lack of prep? There's arguments to be had there. But not on the offering of the choice.
One thing that you absolutely have to lay at Cameron's door was the way he allowed the impression to persist that EU membership was a 50/50 thing for him. Many Eurosceptics in his party sincerely believed there was a chance he would campaign for Leave. He never had a good word to say about the EU until the day he told people the sky would fall in if we left. It's no wonder people weren't listening.
As the result proved the EU was a major issue and a majority wanted out. Blaming Cameron for letting people vote is wrong headed whether one voted leave or remain. For how he campaigned , for the lack of prep? There's arguments to be had there. But not on the offering of the choice.
One thing that you absolutely have to lay at Cameron's door was the way he allowed the impression to persist that EU membership was a 50/50 thing for him. Many Eurosceptics in his party sincerely believed there was a chance he would campaign for Leave. He never had a good word to say about the EU until the day he told people the sky would fall in if we left. It's no wonder people weren't listening.
Nothing. What can they do? Their dichotomous options will be soft cock Brexit or bring down the government.
They can bring down May and not the Government and put a Leaver in charge.
Regardless of the 'numbers' if May is challenged because Leaver cabinet ministers resign in protest she cannot continue - it is simply not credible to deliver Brexit if all the people who were in the Leave campaign stand against her. If it is just the backbenchers who try and bring her down and the cabinet stays loyal she can survive.
If you follow Boris' comments yesterday, he seems to be saying 'we will let you do the negotiation but we will hold you to your promises'.
I don't think there will be an election unless May is removed as leader. Then a new leader may be in a different position, but May cannot win an election and everyone knows it.
Painting the framing of the question in the Irish abortion referendum as a manipulative and underhanded act of railroading by politicians is a strong card for the NO side. They may well get votes from some who are pro-choice. That's how the monarchists in Australia managed to get many republicans to vote for the monarchy in 1999. So I'm on NO now at 6.8.
Word is there won't be many polls between now and Friday, although as far as I know they aren't banned.
Leo Varadkar is popular, but he is a politician and he has said that 14-year jail sentences are inevitable for possession of abortion pills if the result is NO. Bad move. Many pills get ordered online by Irish women and none have yet been jailed.
The "don't let the priests tell you what to do" line sold by many politicians and celebrities may have lost its force. Perhaps if people feel freed from such a long period of being guilt-tripped by blarneyful priests they may be about to decide they want to send a negative message to blarneyful politicians.
It's hard to exaggerate the contempt felt by the educated Dubliners for Irish people living outside of Dublin. The word "hicks" for example is often used.
Abortion is viewed as a very different kind of issue from gay marriage which was tradition versus live-and-let-live. For many, it's not about the church.
This campaigning piece for NO by Breda O'Brien gives a good idea of what the NO side are using as they try to win over wavering YESsers and undecideds.
My feeling is that NO will beat its most recent poll score of 42% easily.
Painting the framing of the question in the Irish abortion referendum as a manipulative and underhanded act of railroading by politicians is a strong card for the NO side. They may well get votes from some who are pro-choice. That's how the monarchists in Australia managed to get many republicans to vote for the monarchy in 1999. So I'm on NO now at 6.8.
Word is there won't be many polls between now and Friday, although as far as I know they aren't banned.
Leo Varadkar is popular, but he is a politician and he has said that 14-year jail sentences are inevitable for possession of abortion pills if the result is NO. Bad move. Many pills get ordered online by Irish women and none have yet been jailed.
The "don't let the priests tell you what to do" line sold by many politicians and celebrities may have lost its force. Perhaps if people feel freed from such a long period of being guilt-tripped by blarneyful priests they may be about to decide they want to send a negative message to blarneyful politicians.
It's hard to exaggerate the contempt felt by the educated Dubliners for Irish people living outside of Dublin. The word "hicks" for example is often used.
Abortion is viewed as a very different kind of issue from gay marriage which was tradition versus live-and-let-live. For many, it's not about the church.
This campaigning piece for NO by Breda O'Brien gives a good idea of what the NO side are using as they try to win over wavering YESsers and undecideds.
My feeling is that NO will beat its most recent poll score of 42% easily.
UK = 1967 Abortion Act Ireland = abortion still illegal in 2018?
Interesting Irish perspective.....looks like the Germans will veto the latest Customs plan & Mr Varadkar has been playing a very high stakes game which may come disastrously unstuck.....
Comments
As the result proved the EU was a major issue and a majority wanted out. Blaming Cameron for letting people vote is wrong headed whether one voted leave or remain. For how he campaigned , for the lack of prep? There's arguments to be had there. But not on the offering of the choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytoSJadmlIg
Only option without an election is a very soft brexit [ versions of SM and CU with annual payments ]. The ERG will throw the toys out of their pram but May has enough votes including the opposition to ride them out. What the loonies do then, is the next question.
Word is there won't be many polls between now and Friday, although as far as I know they aren't banned.
Leo Varadkar is popular, but he is a politician and he has said that 14-year jail sentences are inevitable for possession of abortion pills if the result is NO. Bad move. Many pills get ordered online by Irish women and none have yet been jailed.
The "don't let the priests tell you what to do" line sold by many politicians and celebrities may have lost its force. Perhaps if people feel freed from such a long period of being guilt-tripped by blarneyful priests they may be about to decide they want to send a negative message to blarneyful politicians.
It's hard to exaggerate the contempt felt by the educated Dubliners for Irish people living outside of Dublin. The word "hicks" for example is often used.
Abortion is viewed as a very different kind of issue from gay marriage which was tradition versus live-and-let-live. For many, it's not about the church.
This campaigning piece for NO by Breda O'Brien gives a good idea of what the NO side are using as they try to win over wavering YESsers and undecideds.
My feeling is that NO will beat its most recent poll score of 42% easily.
Ireland = abortion still illegal in 2018?
https://twitter.com/danobrien20/status/998149660324843525