Does the House of Commons have a creche?
Who is going to be the Next Prime Minister of the UK? | Be your stubborn best
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I remember when poor John Smith died so unexpectedly, it's in my mind that Blair was having his wisdom teeth removed that day or shortly after, and then suddenly he was leader. Was a surprise to me, that's for sure.
Leadsom probably saw the professional speech from May and bottled it.
I cannot see how a GE cannot be called soon. May has no mandate to do anything.
sad but true
Which will be precisely her official reasoning for calling a GE. To obtain a mandate. Although, Brown never did.
I think its quite easy to make the counterargument. Brown took over and didnt call a GE, for example. I dont think people will make much of a fuss about it.
Im not saying I disagree with you though, for me the whole idea of Brexit was so vague and the promises so contradictory that the most democratic thing to do would be for parties to spell out their plans and then for voters to decide what they wanted. So for example Tories propose a negotiated exit but putting our economic interests first, UKIP proposing to put immigration first. Lib Dems promising to ignore the referendum completely and Labour promising to argue among themselves. But that would all be too honest and is never going to happen, if they did have a GE Tories would continue to argue we could negotiate access to the single market while imposing immigration controls and we would be no closer to a real mandate for the decision that must inevitably be made.
As I said before I think the argument for a GE will be more opportunistic than about securing a mandate. The Tories can capitalise on the mess Labour are currently in, if we had a GE in the next couple of months they would likely be decimated.
You keep making the same point as me and beating me to it.
can you imagine the disaster a genral election would be right now, labour in a mess, the country divided, the hole election would just be about brexit, giving parties like ukip the chance to make massive gains.
it would just be a mess
The 'mandate' thing is a load of cobblers.
In an ideal world you're right, but we don't elect our PM (and never have) so in reality her mandate is exactly as strong as Cameron's was. She doesn't need to hold a General Election to govern and, like Brown, I doubt she will.
Hopefully we do have an election soon, then. May will look promising in all of the polls, but somehow lead the Tories to a 4th placed finish in the end.
I agree, she doesn't need to (constitutional law is clear on that), but she will want to. Especially considering Labour's current turmoil.
To be honest, Leadsom dropping out in the way she did (contrasting nicely with Labour) smacks of the first shot fired in the run up to an election.
'May sweeps to victory as Scotland turns into a sea of Tory blue.'
I think this is misleading. Technically yes. But in reality people vote based on the manifestos presented by the party leaders. Of course Brown is a precedent but he should have sought a mandate as well and his mandate was undeniably weaker than Blair's
Will she? What's the benefit for her? Winning might give her a nice warm fuzzy feeling but there's a lot of risks and i'm not sure what the benefits are?
I could see it ending badly for her if she did. UKIP would barely even have to campaign to nick votes off the Tories from the right (and they'd take a lot off Labour too) the Lib Dems will surge (at least compared to last year) on their pro-European platform. Whilst they might win a stronger majority off the back of Labour disarray their slender lead at the minute suggests that it could equally likely go the other way and they'll be forced into a minority. Big gamble for not much gain
Of course you're right that that's what people think they're voting for, but the reality is that it isn't. People being misinformed is apparently not enough grounds to reject the democratic process (otherwise we would be ignoring the EU ref).
Is there anything that holding a general election will allow May to do that she currently can't do now? Even if she went fully evil, which she might who knows, there's nothing the electorate can do.
Im no political strategist but I cant see why Tories would lose seats in a GE if it was held now. Why would Tory voters defect to UKIP when the party they voted for last year has now delivered them Brexit? I can see the risk that they dont trust May to actually go through with it, but that doesnt strike me as a big risk, and it is certainly manageable if she just keeps making reassuring noises about it. None of the other parties are going to lure Tory voters away at the moment. The party with the most to lose from a GE is Labour. UKIP might be bigger beneficiaries from a Labour collapse than the Tories, but they would be a weaker opposition. UKIP would certainly end up strengthening their position but that would only consolidate the Tory occupation of the centre ground.
Honestly the more I think about this the more I think it makes sense for the Tories and the more worried about it I feel.
If she activated Article 50 then she wouldn't necessarily lose much to UKIP, but you are right that it would be a bit of a risk.
Good points, but I think it will be a simple risk/reward calculation based on seats to be gained from Labour against the possibility of losing seats to a party to the right of the Conservatives.
Because all UKIP need to do is run on a platform of 'they're holding a general election to get out of listening to the electorate, we are the only party who will actually deliver Brexit' and they'll reap in the votes. They don't even need to say that explicitly that's the opinion people will form regardless.
Besides I think people forget how recently we had an election. They'd be trading four years ish of a mandate of sorts for five years of a stronger one.
Of course I think we should have an election ASAP because it gives us a chance of booting May out but I think that's precisely why they won't do it.
No not really. And with the mess Labour are in she is hardly facing a well organised opposition.
On the other hand if she looks at Brown and the current state of Labour it might be quite wise to call an election. Brown might well have won in 07/08 and Labour are probably not going to be in a state to win one in November. Could end up with another coalition though (I'm still betting that the Lib Dems will win back some of the seats they lost to the Tories in 15 at the next election. Depends how badly Labour do and how well UKIP do)
UKIP's problem is that they don't even have a leader now, and I struggle to see who will be a viable replacement for Farage.
It hurt Brown's reputation as well, he was polling very well in the months immediately after him becoming PM but not having a general election then was the first, albeit not the most significant, event that damaged him. As you it's true that technically we elect our local MP's but people obviously do so with the potential government and Prime Minister in mind. Theresa May arguably has even less of a "mandate" than Brown given it was clear he was going to take over before the 2010 election (the Tories were even stating this in their 2005 election posters) whilst May would not have been even the second favourite to take over from Cameron last year.
Suzanne Evans? Im surprised Nuttall ruled himself out to be honest, he seemed like the one who could deliver Labour voters.
I have a feeling Farage might be 'persuaded' to stay if there's a snap election before they appoint a new leader.
A sad day
He was the VP though - he ran on the same ticket as Kennedy so the voters had already agreed to him being next in line if anything happened to JFK..
Not sure she's allowed to stand as she's suspended. Stephen Woolfe wouldn't be a bad bet.
As to the GE calculation - Tories currently have a majority of 6. If there's a swing of about 2.5 from Labour to them, they could increase that to about 80.
Cameron looked like a angry broken man at his press conference.
And we can't even enjoy it, that is the biggest travesty in all this.
The idea of May running the country is truely terrifying.
Not as alarming as the prospect of Leadsom being in Number 10.
In our system your vote goes directly to the MP but that person is usually a repreresentative of a party. So in reality, although some MPs carry the addittional weight of their charisma or ideals (Michael Foot, Boris Johnson, George Galloway ? ), the vast majority of people vote for the party not the individual. Hence expressions such as Tory stronghold, safe Labour seat ( a thing of the past maybe). The leader of that party becomes PM but as far as I know there's no constitutional requirement to hold a GE if the leader reesigns. In this case "party" functions like "ticket". Churchill, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Major and Brown all became PMs as a result of resignations.
Anyway, the British system is sui generis and is not and cannot be replicated anywhere else. All the ex-colonies have a formal written constitution in one document, whereas ours is a series of laws, statutes etc.
Last edited:
Well not Boris, not Gove and not Leadsom. Look on the bright side.
Abandon ship - what a joke - the three morons have all departed.
Glad Britain now has democracy it yearns - is it what 199 people who voted for the PM.
You couldn't make this up
Glad Britain now has democracy it yearns - is it what 199 people who voted for the PM.
You couldn't make this up
What about Boris or Gove?
Of course they won't, they love un-elected beauro...oh wait.