politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the next general election will be in 2022

2nd - but this assumes Brexit will happen in 2019. If it doesn’t there will be an general election as a referendum on whatever deal is proposed.

tlg86 said:

Well this is an interesting problem for the government:

https://tinyurl.com/yb6sclbm

A Tory MP is set to miss a debate and vote on welfare policy because he will be running the line at a Champions League football tie in Barcelona.

Douglas Ross has been listed as assistant referee at the Camp Nou stadium for Wednesday night's match against Greek side Olympiacos.

The game kicks off at 7.45pm UK time – 45 minutes after MPs at Westminster are expected to vote on a Labour motion calling for the controversial rollout of universal credit to be postponed.

He needs to decide which is more important: representing his constituents or pursuing his football career

Anyone alarmed by this;

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/17/uk-most-severe-terror-threat-ever-mi5-islamist

Should listen to this;

https://www.lrb.co.uk/2017/10/17/adam-shatz/absolute-revolt

Especially ~24-29 min

Mike's conclusion in the lead is probably sound.

Certainly more reliable than the previous thread discussing boundary changes for NI that haven't actually been published.

The NHS is slowly grinding to a halt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41656667

It may be this was a hidden factor in GE2017. Patients (and their friends and families) know when they are on a waiting list, regardless of the newspaper headlines.

Given a choice this parliament runs to 2022 - I agree with that. But plenty of scenarios where the choice isn't in the government's gift - a disastrous exit from the EU, a transition deal that pulls the Tories apart, the DUP killing the C&S deal over the border issue and making the government do unstable it can't carry on.

In practice though the fixed term parliament act could be the only reason why the election runs to 2022. I can see a period where we have a government in office but the opposition being in power, driving the legislative programme thanks to increased rebellions against a government stupid enough to (for example) insist there is no problem with 6 week waits for Universal Credit. We have a zombie PM- I can see how that extends to a zombie government, held in place by the FTPA because the numbers in the commons don't let it govern but also don't allow a new election or alternate government formed from within it's members.

Final point. It's increasingly clear that a stubborn emotionally stunted politically neutered PM has every intention of lashing her hands to the wheel to maintain a steady course whilst her "colleagues" fight around her. The course is towards the titanic iceberg, and it will sink the Tory party. MPs can and probably will prevent an early election and thus save their own seats for a few years. At the expense of an economic calamity for the country that huggers their party for another generation as Black Wednesday and Maastrict did last time.

The legislation is all in place for UC and the decision whether to roll it out or not is one given to Ministers. I suspect this is another opposition day motion that the Tories will feel perfectly entitled to ignore if it doesn't go their way. I can't make up my mind whether this shows a contempt of Parliament or the pointlessness of opposition. Maybe both.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

dixiedean said:

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

Quite. It's also worth noting that the culling of the December 2015 register was a deliberate political act at the end of the transition to the flawed system of Individual Electoral Registration. The Electoral Commission argued explicitly that the register should not have been culled at that point of names still retained from the old registration system. The Government however knew the political significance of the Dec 2015 register for the boundary review and used their (then) majority to overturn the Electoral Commission's recommendation. What happened subsequently was that a significant segment of the population started to take an interest in voting and woke up to the fact that many of them had been left off the new register in time to get their names back on for the 2016 referendum and 2017 GE.
....

Interesting Idea. The voter turnout in 2016 was higher than expected, which might mean that there were many younger voters had not yet got themselves back on the register.

It is not difficult to imagine that many younger adults who were potential remain voters but not on the register suddenly realised that "voting matters" and got themselves on the register before GE 2017. Do we have the break down in registered voters to see this?

The problems with Verify are not unconnected with the problems with rolling out UC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41642044

One has to seriously wonder about the quality of civil servants in the DWP. The leadership through most of this period under IDS was laughably incompetent (at least you could laugh if if you were not dependent on benefits) but even so. The idea that a majority of the membership once thought that man was the one to lead them into a GE with a view to becoming PM is a deeply depressing one.

Isn’t there a case for a Government to have to depend on more than 'just‘ party members when trying to get something of the gravity of Brexit through the House?
I know ‘the people’ voted for Brexit but by no means all of us did. And, while the question hasn’t been formally asked, it’s quite likely that, for example, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and WTO rules wouldn’t be the wish of most of us.

On topic, great article by OGH. Nice to talk about the betting once more.

The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.

So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.

Good morning, everyone.

I broadly agree (though five years for tight odds isn't to my taste). It's worth remembering that the mistake was not the election call. It was the worst approach to winning since Julius Caesar charged Gergovia before realising scaling a wall was easier if you brought ladders.

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.

The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.

In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.

The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.

God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.

Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.

My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/920542297913221120

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I broadly agree (though five years for tight odds isn't to my taste). It's worth remembering that the mistake was not the election call. It was the worst approach to winning since Julius Caesar charged Gergovia before realising scaling a wall was easier if you brought ladders.

Just wondering why that metaphor isn't used more widely.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/920542297913221120

Really interesting.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.

The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.

In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.

The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.

God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.

Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.

My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.

There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.

Mr. Recidivist, too many Caesarian propagandists.

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, great article by OGH. Nice to talk about the betting once more.

The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.

So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.

I'm starting to think that the risk of 'No Deal' is receding, almost to nothing. And also, 'No Deal' isn't synonymous with no FTA, which is where some seem to be heading.

From a British perspective, it is politically impossible for a UK govt to be on the hook for continuing aid to prop up the EZ, improve roads in Spain or Romania, etc, BEYOND 2022.

For the EU, it is improbable that they could continue to fund the level of spending that they currently enjoy unless they replace UK current financial input. Almost certainly, there will be a fudge, which involves us entering into agreements to 'run' joint projects for which we will simply 'pay too much' - thereby creating some surplus that will be used to soften the blow.

Secondly, each nation will have pinch points. The Spanish/Portuguese - Tourism. Germany - manufactured exports. France - Agriculture & tourism. EU Hauliers across the 27. EU Air Carriers across the 27. France/Spain/ Netherlands - Fishing. The wailing will be tremendous, not just from British companies, but from EU based companies.

When it comes down to it, all politics is local - and that applies to the 27 as much as it does us, and the national govts won't be able to ignore damaged sectors. There will be a deal, nuts and bolts maybe (i.e no FTA), but there will be a deal, however long it takes.

Pong said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/920542297913221120

Really interesting.

Very interesting indeed.

But you still wouldn't want to invite a Leaver home to tea.

TonyE said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, great article by OGH. Nice to talk about the betting once more.

The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.

So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.

I'm starting to think that the risk of 'No Deal' is receding, almost to nothing. And also, 'No Deal' isn't synonymous with no FTA, which is where some seem to be heading.

From a British perspective, it is politically impossible for a UK govt to be on the hook for continuing aid to prop up the EZ, improve roads in Spain or Romania, etc, BEYOND 2022.

For the EU, it is improbable that they could continue to fund the level of spending that they currently enjoy unless they replace UK current financial input. Almost certainly, there will be a fudge, which involves us entering into agreements to 'run' joint projects for which we will simply 'pay too much' - thereby creating some surplus that will be used to soften the blow.

Secondly, each nation will have pinch points. The Spanish/Portuguese - Tourism. Germany - manufactured exports. France - Agriculture & tourism. EU Hauliers across the 27. EU Air Carriers across the 27. France/Spain/ Netherlands - Fishing. The wailing will be tremendous, not just from British companies, but from EU based companies.

When it comes down to it, all politics is local - and that applies to the 27 as much as it does us, and the national govts won't be able to ignore damaged sectors. There will be a deal, nuts and bolts maybe (i.e no FTA), but there will be a deal, however long it takes.

I am sure you are right. But the 'flavour' of the deal will be important to the politics. If it looks like the UK government are supplicants accepting whatever the EU deigns to offer, it will reflect badly on the negotiators.

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Morning all. For anyone who’s certain the government will last the next fortnight, there’s a load of 1.02 available to lay a 2017 election on Betfair. Which doesn’t make you wait five years for a payout.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132100025

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, great article by OGH. Nice to talk about the betting once more.

The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.

So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.

I think either of these are credible reasons for an earlier election, but the question is how many Tory MPs would put country ahead of party? Not many, I think.

On the other hand, those in marginals may see Brexit as ending their political careers, so jumping ship not suicidal.

Let me make this very clear for you: in any one of an infinite number of parallel universes it will never be in this country's interests to put Corbyn in power, or anywhere near it.

https://twitter.com/guitarmoog/status/920452103528747008

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.

The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.

God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.

Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.

My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.

There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.

As with the Thatcher government there are collective myths with that of Labour of 1974-79.

Inflation is always mentioned although that was in many ways an inheritence from the Barber boom and the oil shock of 1973 whereas the recession of 1975, when unemployment first became endemic in Britain (hence the 'Labour isn't Working' posters), rarely is.

From 1977q3 to 1978q4 there was actually strong economic growth:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyq/qna

It was this growth that led to both Labour's recovery in the polls in 1978 and the pay claims and strikes of the winter of discontent.

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

lol

no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne

I have a statue of her in my garden

She doomed the party and the country when she did that.

To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.

Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.

She lacked class.

Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, great article by OGH. Nice to talk about the betting once more.

The biggest risk for this Government is "no deal" which is a still a strong possibility and I think could bring it down. A further risk is if Parliament votes down Theresa's deal resulting in no deal, which I think could be take as a loss of confidence.

So, it's no bet for me until aroundabout this time next year, when the shape of the deal and its politics are much clearer.

I think either of these are credible reasons for an earlier election, but the question is how many Tory MPs would put country ahead of party? Not many, I think.

On the other hand, those in marginals may see Brexit as ending their political careers, so jumping ship not suicidal.

Let me make this very clear for you: in any one of an infinite number of parallel universes it will never be in this country's interests to put Corbyn in power, or anywhere near it.

You misunderstand the country's interests.

You also misunderstand your fellow countrymen.

Look at the polls. Trust the voters.

They are not misunderstood, and do not require educating.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

lol

no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne

I have a statue of her in my garden

She doomed the party and the country when she did that.

To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.

Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.

She lacked class.

Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.

guffaw

yeh because Osborne did so much for the little people, leprachauns have a shrine to him

the sad thing is maybe she should have left him in place since most the current shit was caused by him and he could have been made clean up his own messes

OldKingCole said:

Isn’t there a case for a Government to have to depend on more than 'just‘ party members when trying to get something of the gravity of Brexit through the House?
I know ‘the people’ voted for Brexit but by no means all of us did. And, while the question hasn’t been formally asked, it’s quite likely that, for example, a ‘no deal’ Brexit and WTO rules wouldn’t be the wish of most of us.

The working class voters who won it for Leave did so largely to reduce immigration, they will be furious if their victory leads to no new immigration controls, even if only on a short term basis we have to end free movement

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

lol

no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne

I have a statue of her in my garden

She doomed the party and the country when she did that.

To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.

Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.

She lacked class.

Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.

Do you think Corbyn would have been replaced as Labour leader if there hadn't been a general election ?

Because the issues which were damaging the Conservatives in 2017 would only have increased in effect by 2020.

Although if Corbyn had been replaced by a wishy-washy EdM type then Labour might have struggled to exploit the Conservative weaknesses.

I reckon he might have. May’s local and Mayoral results were dire for Labour.

Another rinsing for Labour outside of London next year might have been a tipping point.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

On topic if the government can maintain their arrangement with the DUP I think Mike is undoubtedly right. Fag end governments tend to hang on to the last in the hope something turns up anyway, see Labour 1974-9, 2005-2010 and the Tories 1992-7. So even without the FTPA I would expect that.

The only question is whether the arrangement with the DUP can be maintained. That may well bring us back to the last thread.

In the first two examples, that nearly worked. Callaghan might have won had he gone in 1978 (he was somewhat unlucky with the Winter of Discontent) and Labour got their act together in the last 6 months of the 2005 Parliament, denying Cameron a majority.

The 1992-1997 Parliament is the obvious outlier as the Tories were cruising for a bruising post Black Wednesday/Maastricht but waiting for the (very good) economic performance to become apparent was the right tactic.

God knows what would have happened to them had they gone to the country in 1995.

Brown was heading to defeat after the crash no matter when he went. He missed his opportunity in the early months of his Premiership although May's experience shows that that was perhaps not the no brainer that people thought at the time. The majority he inherited was substantially greater than May and it is possible, if not certain, that he would have held on with a much reduced majority if he had gone before the crash.

My recollection of 78/9 was that even before the Winter of Discontent there was a strong perception of drift and chaos in the government. Inflation was rising out of control, the public finances and services were perceived to be a mess and the Unions were thought to have way too much power. Only the divisive nature of Mrs T gave Labour any hope.

There is something odd about people's memories of the Callaghan government. You say inflation was rising out of control, yet it was higher under the preceding and following Conservative governments. Yesterday's Telegraph piece by Kemi attributed the 3-day week to Labour (and tbh it was several hours before this struck me). It is as if our collective consciousness has become distorted, perhaps by the reputation of the Thatcher governments.

I think it's because some of these matters were caused by industrial action by the unions and they were seen at the time and perhaps later as one and the same as Labour. But you're right that the 3-day week happened under Heath because he was unable to govern effectively. Labour thought at the time that working with the unions would bring industrial peace. Callaghan was to find that that wasn't the case. Hence Thatcher etc.....

TheScreamingEagles said:

another_richard said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

lol

no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne

I have a statue of her in my garden

She doomed the party and the country when she did that.

To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.

Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.

She lacked class.

Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.

Do you think Corbyn would have been replaced as Labour leader if there hadn't been a general election ?

Because the issues which were damaging the Conservatives in 2017 would only have increased in effect by 2020.

Although if Corbyn had been replaced by a wishy-washy EdM type then Labour might have struggled to exploit the Conservative weaknesses.

I reckon he might have. May’s local and Mayoral results were dire for Labour.

Another rinsing for Labour outside of London next year might have been a tipping point.

There would certainly have been turmoil within Labour after the May results if there hadn't been a GE underway.

O/T

Good question:

"What would you rather the police do: investigate Twitter trolls or your ransacked home?
Philip Johnston"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/would-rather-police-do-investigate-twitter-trolls-ransacked/

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.

May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.

Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

This is what I wrote.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

Fuck’s sake man. Do you think she wasn’t damaged by it?

Brown did not call a snap election in 2007 though unlike May in 2017 but waited until 2010 hence Brown will go down in the history books as having got just 29% of the vote to May's 42% and 258 seats to May's 318.

I didn’t say he called a snap election merely speculation about it trashed his reputation just like Mrs May did by calling one.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

This is what I wrote.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

Fuck’s sake man. Do you think she wasn’t damaged by it?

Brown did not call a snap election in 2007 though unlike May in 2017 but waited until 2010 hence Brown will go down in the history books as having got just 29% of the vote to May's 42% and 258 seats to May's 318.

That leaves out the effect of the smaller parties collapsing.

HYUFD said:

May will certainly try to go on until June 2022, however if she is replaced as Tory leader before then, probably after Brexit is completed in March 2019, any new Tory leader may want to try and get a renewed mandate and at least a small majority although that depends on them getting a polling bounce.

By 2022 we will also have had the 2020 US presidential election, which on current US polling will be comfortably won by Bernie Sanders, while the next French presidential election is due to be in April and May 2022 and in which Melenchon is likely to be perhaps Macron's main rival. So by June 2022 a PM Corbyn may not seem so outlandish after all but in line with the international trend.

I think on balance that OGH is correct, this will run five years. But it is very hard to say that is other than a reasoned guess.

A lot, indeed, perhaps all, will rest on the personality of the new Tory leader in 2019. A Boris type figure with a decent sized ego may take the risk in order to have a mandate.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

I was worse than that.

I suspected she was like that all along, I had a bad experience with her wayback in 2002, convinced myself it was an outlier and I'd got her wrong - because I wanted to believe that - and then my original view was vindicated.

There will not be no deal. If senior cabinet ministers are confident enough (who isn't vs TMay right now?) to dismiss the idea of no deal as ludicrous, then we can be pretty sure that there won't be no deal.

In any case all other issues aside, it would be absolutely suicidal for the Cons to pursue a no deal which would destroy their reputation (such that it still exists) for economic competence.

People often point to the difference between the deficit, or inflation, or some other economic aggregate under Lab vs Cons usually noting that under Lab it was worse. Which as has been pointed out on this thread already was often not the case. It is simply the perception that the Cons run the economy better than Lab and if this perception goes, the Cons have precious little left.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

This is what I wrote.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

Fuck’s sake man. Do you think she wasn’t damaged by it?

Brown did not call a snap election in 2007 though unlike May in 2017 but waited until 2010 hence Brown will go down in the history books as having got just 29% of the vote to May's 42% and 258 seats to May's 318.

His reputation still got trashed by a snap election (an election he didn't call and which didn't happen). You can't deny surely that his dithering over whether to call a snap election or not did him a lot of harm. TSE's point in his last post is logically accurate.

Pong said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

Good question:

"What would you rather the police do: investigate Twitter trolls or your ransacked home?
Philip Johnston"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/would-rather-police-do-investigate-twitter-trolls-ransacked/

I can't access the full article, but the important question is how the tories got themselves into this situation.

Hint:

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1006F/production/_90474656_police_numbers3_624.png

Britain is just, well, better under labour.

Sorting out this tory mess is going to be a 2 term job.

The mess will not begin to be sorted out until Britain accepts that it has to live within its means.

I see no evidence that Labour are willing to accept that any more than the Conservatives are.

But whichever government it is finally forced upon will not enjoy the experience.

AndyJS said:

O/T

Good question:

"What would you rather the police do: investigate Twitter trolls or your ransacked home?
Philip Johnston"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/would-rather-police-do-investigate-twitter-trolls-ransacked/

The silly and irrelevant jibe about overseas aid undermines what ought to have been a serious point. Though I expect Richard Littlejohn was asking the same question in the Mail a decade ago, and in the Sun ten years before that.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

lol

no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne

I have a statue of her in my garden

She doomed the party and the country when she did that.

To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.

Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.

She lacked class.

Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.

Ineptitude innit?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

you also daid she didnt have a reputation, so how could she trash it ?

She had the perception of a good reputation with the voters, I was one of the few to see through her from the start.

Though to be honest, I thought the public would see the real her in 2018 when Brexit started going mammary glands up.

lol

no you sulked becasue she sacked Osborne

I have a statue of her in my garden

She doomed the party and the country when she did that.

To be honest it wasn’t the sacking of Osborne that pissed me off, it was the manner she and her team sacked the little people when she took power.

Was proof that she was a flat truck bully and not very good.

She lacked class.

Sadly for all of us her ineptness has made Corbyn as PM likely.

Ineptitude innit?

Arrogance too.

She and her team got high on their own product.

#dontblamemeisupportedleadsom

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/920547785140731904

That's pretty worrying.

One thing that has surprised me is I don't think there has been a written Ministerial Direction on universal credit. If the civil servants really think it is going to be a train wreck - they should surely have asked for one by now?

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.

May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.

Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust

Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.

Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?

Here's a quick thought - now that there are means to transfer bank accounts between banks would it be possible / practical to allow a bank to be shut down with all accounts transferred to the remaining banks....

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I made this point back in July too.

Like Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister she most resembles, Mrs May trashed her reputation over a snap election too.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/13/if-or-when-theresa-may-is-replaced-her-successor-shouldnt-hold-a-snap-election/

Brown got 29% and 258 seats, May 42% and 318 seats

Missing the point once again.

Or do you think Mrs May was enhanced by June’s result.

Your point was she was Gordon Brown, in terms of her 1 election result she was actually closer to Major 1992 or Wilson 1974 or Cameron 2010 than Brown. Brown got a result closer to Heath's results in 1974

That is still the case even if the result was below expectations

Brown inherited a tired party after 10yrs of majority rule. Not much he could do really.

May took a party that had just 2yrs ago won it's first majority, pull off a spectacular 180 and lost it.

Brown left 9% unemployment, massive debt and bailed out every bank that asked, even Bush let Lehmans go bust

Gordon Brown bailed out the depositors of those retail banks. He bailed out the guy who had his savings in Northern Rock. He bailed out the small business who had banked with RBS. He bailed out the family who used Lloyds for their current account.

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank. It did provide banking services to millions of people.

Do you really think the British economy would have performed better if millions of peoples' bank accounts were frozen, and tens of thousands of businesses were unable to function as their bank had gone bust?

I'd have preferred an Icelandic solution personally.