[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

I doubt there would be an meaningful stats because we don't run 'control' elections to check.

So yeah, maybe rather than saying "debates are bad for the incumbent" we should probably say: "debates are generally considered bad for the incumbent".

Going back through was it the debate that lost it? The UK has very little history of TV debates, as said in the US it's quite different but you have 3 who went on to lose the election from '76 the others won.

Yes it exposes the incumbent to be held to account and asked about their record and so it should it's what we are judging them on.

Plus the presence of the leader gives little known candidates a massive media platform they wouldn't otherwise have.

There will be a big push by the media to have a debate - audiences to amass, soap powder to sell.

But that does not make them a good idea, especially for May.

They favour double glazing sales(wo)men - those that can give glib answers, play the room and deflect any question. It would suit BoJo, Cameron or Blair or a bullshitter like Yvette Cooper, May is a different and, I think, far better leader - she is one to quietly get on with things, to take the evidence and make a decision. You can see this during her tenure at the Home Office - it used to be permanently in the news in the form of "Home Office screws up XXXXX ( again )". She neither sought the spotlight for what she did, nor did she have the spotlight turned on her - she was efficient and stopped the culture of cock-ups.She quietly did a better job than any of her predecessors in recent history.

She already is prime ministerial, she has nothing to prove or gain in this game, the others can drag themselves up towards where she is, she can only lose.

And ultimately, these debates tell very little, other than who can talk the most bull, completely deflect a simple, straight question. The media might, for their own reasons, want these debates, but I certainly won't miss them.

Party political broadcasts don't generally attract follow-up media coverage or set social media ablaze. TV debates are much more likely to set the news agenda for days afterwards, and the 'I Agree with Nick' meme gave Clegg momentum and changed the election result.

The other problem with a debate is that there is no obvious three-party dynamic any more, so the debate will be more cluttered with different regional agendas and you end up with the PM potentially given equal billing to the likes of Paul Nuttall.

So there are no benefits to a serving PM, and plenty of risks. Which is why she is resisting it, and the other parties seem rather more keen.

You can see this during her tenure at the Home Office - it used to be permanently in the news in the form of "Home Office screws up XXXXX ( again )". She neither sought the spotlight for what she did, nor did she have the spotlight turned on her - she was efficient and stopped the culture of cock-ups.She quietly did a better job than any of her predecessors in recent history.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/theresa-mays-record-home-secretary-isnt-reassuring/

was it the debate that lost it?

a) It doesn't matter. Even if a debate costs votes, the candidate might still win.
b) As you say, we don't have the data to know.

So there are no benefits to a serving PM, and plenty of risks. Which is why she is resisting it, and the other parties seem rather more keen.

This.

Someone who thinks debates favor the incumbent has to explain why every party leader involved is arguing counter to their own interests.

Cranberry - I agree with Mike. May has a long association with cock-up in my mind - all her dealings with Europe since becoming PM for example. All she has done is strengthen the divides in the UK and unite the EU against us with her actions.
She's already challenging CMD for worst PM ever.

As for debates, all the May / Brexy supporters are telling us on here is why it is rational for her to be scared of debates and run away. But this is the individual we are about to ask to do some very dangerous negotiations - I don't want someone who runs away when it's scary.

You can see this during her tenure at the Home Office - it used to be permanently in the news in the form of "Home Office screws up XXXXX ( again )

Waaaaaaat, cranberry are you trolling, no one could be that misinformed/deluded ??
The home office was a shitshow under May,

Off the top of my head....
Several broken pledges to reduce immigration (non EU and EU)
Go home van cock up
Passport issuing disaster
Border control delays that left 1000s delayed at airports
Her reputation among the police after her attempts at reform and managing cuts is horrendous , go ask a copper if they will be voting for May ,!
Getting the date wrong for appealing to the ECJ against the high court ruling saying Abu qatada couldn't be deported, surely the most humiliating though I'm sure there's plenty more

May is a different and, I think, far better leader

That depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? How you define 'good'.

To me, a good leader is one that finds compromise to keep most of the people happy. May has done the opposite - pressed through with her own agenda that has just enough backing, and basically **** everyone else.

I cannot see how that will not blow up in our faces in years to come. It means that half the country is bitter and resentful of her actions. People still resent Thatcher 30 years later. Is that the legacy of a good leader? Maybe if you think half the country are moany ****s, it is.

As for debates, all the May / Brexy supporters are telling us on here is why it is rational for her to be scared of debates and run away. But this is the individual we are about to ask to do some very dangerous negotiations - I don't want someone who runs away when it's scary.

I'm not a May or Brexy supporter <shakes fist>

Equally, you could say that you don't want someone negotiating for you who will fall into an obvious trap...

May (or Crosby) will doubtless have balanced the relative risk of running away from the debate vs doing the debate. I'm sure she has factored in the small number of people who would have voted Tory but might not due to this issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that you were teetering towards voting Tory but have been swayed by the debate issue... 🙂

Equally, you could say that you don't want someone negotiating for you who will fall into an obvious trap

It's not a trap, is it? If you can't hold your own in a debate, you're in the wrong game. You can't call it a mendacious trap if people just want to hold you to account. She's a politician ffs.

@cranberry, do you have any actual dealings with the home office? Your review there is pretty much absolutely the office of what you'll hear from anyone I know that works with them- she institutionalised incompetence as a useful tool. For me personally it's visa clearances and holy shit, I could go on for days.

Martin - not aimed at you specifically.

As for me, I'd vote for anyone I trusted to go to Westminster and oppose firstly Brexit and secondly hard Brexit.

I live in a (presently) Tory constituency, held by a Brexy. He is pretty much lobby fodder - I doubt he chooses his underpants without checking with the whips first.
And where you can see any individual thought he comes across as a homophobe authoritarian.

Being a Tory is probably one of his lesser sins.

But yes, I'm a champagne socialist (though technically more of a Bordeaux / Bourgogne socialist - give me a decent red any day) so unlikely to pick a Tory as my first choice and May as an incompetent reactionary religious zealot of an authoritarian is a easy person to dislike.

"Equally, you could say that you don't want someone negotiating for you who will fall into an obvious trap..."

Indeed.

Given the choice between a brave decision and a considered evidence based decision I'll take the latter.

Other people will feel differently, that's why we have elections.

Holding a Brexit Referendum was a very courageous gamble. Not sure everyone agreed that makes it a good decision.

And perhaps it would be worth waiting to see what each group propose and which ones look like they could work together.
At least you know to expect the opposite of what may promises

It's not a trap, is it? If you can't hold your own in a debate, you're in the wrong game. You can't call it a mendacious trap if people just want to hold you to account. She's a politician ffs.

Politics is about the art of winning, not the art of debating, so yes, she is a politican (ffs). Cameron agreed to the debates, and to the referendum, because he wasn't a very good politician.

She's not calling it a trap. I am. Because for her, it most likely offers her no advantage and plenty of risk.

I live in a (presently) Tory constituency, held by a Brexy. He is pretty much lobby fodder - I doubt he chooses his underpants without checking with the whips first.

You on the IoW too?

York Outer. Check his voting record. Not a nice man.

Apparently May visited Bolton today and got the welcome she deserved from a gentleman who waved at her while not using all of his fingers...

She really can't open her mouth without lying:

[i] “[u]It’s great to be here in Bolton[/u], fresh from the House of Commons, fresh from winning a vote in the House of Commons, which has approved my decision to hold a General Election on 8 June.[/i]

Look, I'm quite proudly from Bolton, but I've never found the experience "great"!!

Do we know what kind of brexit mandate Chairman May is looking for yet ? the right wing press seem to think it's ultra hard yet the city seems to think it's kind of soft.

Klunk - Member
Do we know what kind of brexit mandate Chairman May is looking for yet

Do we know what kind of brexit mandate Chairman May is looking for yet ?

Does she even know?

Changes her mind a lot...

[img] [/img]

I don't think she has a clue what she's doing.

[img] [/img]

party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party

See what you mean igm.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24853/julian_sturdy/york_outer/votes

That's him.

I have a lot of his HoC stationery at home.

May is a second rate Frank Underwood wannabe - that's all there is to understand about her...

I reckon she possibly watches HoC for ideas whilst she whips her hogtied husband and has him call her "maam".

Shes like a 6th formers idea of what it means to be a machiavellian political operator.

Holding a Brexit Referendum was a very courageous gamble.

it was a short-sighted, ill-conceived and complacent act of opportunism by a politician who wasn't half as clever as he thought he was. There was a reason Blair - a far far cleverer politician - wouldn't even contemplate it. He knew full well what the result would be.

And since then we've been at the mercy of a Tory party of the most blatant and self-serving opportunists. Boris's whole stance was pure opportunism. Goves back-stabbing - cynical opportunism. Mays accent to power - pure opportunism. This *ing election - pure *ing opportunism

Everything that every one of these ****s have done has been absolutely self-serving, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else!

Everything that every one of these ****s have done has been absolutely self-serving, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else!

There is a silver lining. This election is pretty much an admission that brexit is going to be a failure and is merely an exercise in extending their time in government by a couple of years. The damage would be done by brexit early election or not, so another couple of years is no big deal. Also it allows an early resolution (probably) to the Corbyn situation. The question is whether labour would be better off choosing a new leader this summer, or in 2020?

After his back-to-the-70's speech before, someone raised a nightmare scenario. The more I think about it, the more I think it's not only plausible, but actually pretty likely...

Corbs leads labour to a catastrophic election defeat, but then refuses to resign, saying he needs to finish the job. He could even call a leadership election, where the 6th formers vote him in again.

The result.... 5 years of Theresa and co to get on with whatever the hell they like, with no opposition at all. Effectively a single party state run by a bunch of hard right nut-jobs.

Something to look forward to eh?

After his back-to-the-70's speech before

Is saying that the tories represent the establishment elite now a hard left 1970s viewpoint? Your hatred of Corbyn really doesn't do your objectivity any favours sometimes. There wasn't much in that speech that the vast majority of people wouldn't agree with.

I agree with most of what he said. But since when did we need it pointing out that the Tories are a bunch of soulless, self-serving ****s who exclusively serve the interests of their rich mates

Well.... like... der!

What I don't hear any is viable ideas about how he's going to change it. Its all pie-in-the-sky 6th form nonsense, that relies on the discovery of a forest of magic money trees

There is a silver lining. This election is pretty much an admission that brexit is going to be a failure and is merely an exercise in extending their time in government by a couple of years. The damage would be done by brexit early election or not, so another couple of years is no big deal.

I'm still looking for the silver lining in this...

There really isn't one. We're all totally ****ed!

I can envisage the nightmare scenario of a Tory party pureeing a calamitous hard right agenda through Brexit, and Corbyn still insisting on clinging on to the leadership, thus meaning there effectively is no opposition

If so, I'm leaving the country!

[quote=binners ]There really isn't one. We're all totally ****ed!
I can envisage the nightmare scenario of a Tory party pureeing a calamitous hard right agenda through Brexit, and Corbyn still insisting on clinging on to the leadership, thus meaning there effectively is no opposition
If so, I'm leaving the country!

Come to Scotland. We'll need more people to pay for all our loony leftie ideas!

I agree with most of what he said. But since when did we need it pointing out that the Tories are a bunch of soulless, self-serving ****s who exclusively serve the interests of their rich mates

Well considering that many working and middle class people vote for them despite it clearly not being in their interests I'd say it needs to be pointed out an awful lot more. The challenge is doing it in a way that people can relate to that cuts through the rabid propaganda of the right wing press and supposedly impartial mainstream media.

Well considering that many working and middle class people vote for them despite it clearly not being in their interests I'd say it needs to be pointed out an awful lot more.

Exactly. Keep pointing it out for the next 7 weeks, plus NHS every other sentence and people may start to think about what the tories are actually doing for them

I'm still looking for the silver lining in this...

Obviously the silver lining is that in 5 years time the tories are f*****. It's always been the case that whoever the leader is, labour only really have a chance of success when the tories have run everything down to the point where the general public wake up and realise they're much worse off than they were before.

[quote=martinhutch ]It is bizarre that Scotland's left is so unrepresented either in its own Parliament or Westminster.

[quote=yourguitarhero ]Come to Scotland. We'll need more people to pay for all our loony leftie ideas!

🙂

Do people up there still see SNP as a Left of Centre party?

Well considering that many working and middle class people vote for them despite it clearly not being in their interest

People vote Tory as they are the party that's good for the economy and business. No business no job for the working class. A Labour Govt helps no one if the economy is daffy ducked by their looney policies. Blair understood that and hence his center-ist approach especially to business. Corbyn would be a disaster for the Middle Class.

There was a reason Blair - a far far cleverer politician - wouldn't even contemplate it. He knew full well what the result would be.

So he signed the Lisbon Treaty enabling ever closer Union and an effective EU constitution in the full knowledge the UK wanted out of the EU. Democracy eh ?

A Labour Govt helps no one if the economy is daffy ducked by their looney policies

Whilst I accept there is a general perception that the tories do better on the economy I do not think it is actually true any govt - for it was a world wide recession- ws on trouble then and it had little to do with who was in power at the time - GO agreed to match labour spending plans for example

in the full knowledge the UK wanted out of the EU

I thought you would love him for it as dont forget

The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU and the procedure to do so.

the last time this happened it was the banking sector which did us all in and the Tories were proposing even less regulation

On Peter Hennessey's Reflections Nigel Lawson said that regulations he'd put in places would have prevented the crash and New Labour removed them.

I've no idea if that's true but I think politicians are typically honest when they go on Reflections.

martinhutch - Member
Do people up there still see SNP as a Left of Centre party?

As Westminster has moved, and is still moving, the centre to the right, it's not that difficult to be "left of centre".

Further left than May? Yes.
Further left than Cameron? Yes.
Further left than Brown? Yes.
Further left than Blair? Yes.