Tracer Tong wrote:

I don't see how May would have been 'defeated' by forcing through an election. Indeed, that could easily have been spun as a necessary measure to overcome the panicked obstruction of a tremulous Labour Party. The PR line practically writes itself, and it was in a rare moment of lucidity that Corbyn (and team) realised as much and reacted appropriately.

She would have been defeated in that vote, if she had been ... um ... defeated? In the vote? That's how.

As I said, it would still have been short lived, the GE would still go ahead.

Tracer Tong wrote:I also don't see how local elections have been undermined. The results of those elections stand whatever the outcome of the general election.

Ooookay.

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

I don't see how May would have been 'defeated' by forcing through an election. Indeed, that could easily have been spun as a necessary measure to overcome the panicked obstruction of a tremulous Labour Party. The PR line practically writes itself, and it was in a rare moment of lucidity that Corbyn (and team) realised as much and reacted appropriately.

She would have been defeated in that vote...
As I said, it would still have been short lived, the GE would still go ahead.

If all you had in mind was something so inconsequential, yeah, I guess she would have lost a vote in the Commons. But it's no defeat in any substantive sense.

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I also don't see how local elections have been undermined. The results of those elections stand whatever the outcome of the general election.

Ooookay.

You don't agree?

Tracer Tong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

I don't see how May would have been 'defeated' by forcing through an election. Indeed, that could easily have been spun as a necessary measure to overcome the panicked obstruction of a tremulous Labour Party. The PR line practically writes itself, and it was in a rare moment of lucidity that Corbyn (and team) realised as much and reacted appropriately.

She would have been defeated in that vote...
As I said, it would still have been short lived, the GE would still go ahead.

If all you had in mind was something so inconsequential, yeah, I guess she would have lost a vote in the Commons. But it's no defeat in any substantive sense.

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I also don't see how local elections have been undermined. The results of those elections stand whatever the outcome of the general election.

Ooookay.

You don't agree?

Corbyn points out to May that her focus must be on Brexit. As she had in her mind rightly pointed out to the SNP another vots at this point in time is merely a distraction from the important work to be done on the EU negotiation. She has the necessary majority to get this done, even has a purely advisory parliamentary vote in the bag. etc.

Then to get her election she has to either call a no confidence vote in the HoC or risk getting defeated in the Lords. Whatever she chooses the opportunity for Corbyn is to claim that he was acting in the public interest to protect voters from an unnecessary expense and distraction, while forcing the government to 'get on with the day job'. He could lay it on by pointing out that they wanted to get rid of the manifesto binds that prevent them from taking more money from 'heard working people' as had been tried in the Budget, and that this is a govt. that has run out of ideas and wants to protect themselves from the judgement of the people, but using the smoke screen of Brexit to get 5 years to develop a strategy.

Meanwhile he could actually prepare for a planned election at the end of the year, if May really was prepared to go through with one that late in the Brexit negotiations.

Tracer Tong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
Are you not aware that an early election requires endorsement by 2/3 of MPs, not a simple a majority?

But a simple majority is all that is needed to repeal the legislation that demands a two thirds majority.

I think the point about Corbyn's labour is they should have opposed. And that would likely have still lead to a GE - actually, guaranteed it would - but to get there May would have had to jump through some complex hoops. Afaik a rejection of the vote last week would have meant at the very least a delay and possibly a vote of no confidence in the PM, and presumably as you suggest another vote to repeal the legislation itself so that a simple majority would be all that was required for the GE to go ahead. Defeat for May, in other words, rather than having no opposition to a GE that is being called on a false premise. Perhaps more than one.

Instead of Corbyn (and SNP ) being responsible for a May defeat, even if short lived, we now find ourselves in a fake Tory GE campaign which will be over before we know it, with presumably a weakened opposition.

For one thing, any GE should have been refused by the parties until after the local elections this month. They have been undermined completely.

I don't see how May would have been 'defeated' by forcing through an election. Indeed, that could easily have been spun as a necessary measure to overcome the panicked obstruction of a tremulous Labour Party. The PR line practically writes itself, and it was in a rare moment of lucidity that Corbyn (and team) realised as much and reacted appropriately.

I also don't see how local elections have been undermined. The results of those elections stand whatever the outcome of the general election.

Mea culpa on the 2/3rds, I knew that but forgot it in the moment.

I agree that opposition to the GE only makes any sense at all if it guarantees that there will be no early GE. If the election goes ahead anyway, by whatever means, any partes that opposed will be crippled by their failed attempt to obstruct, all to the benefit of the Government.

Pebble wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

I don't see how May would have been 'defeated' by forcing through an election. Indeed, that could easily have been spun as a necessary measure to overcome the panicked obstruction of a tremulous Labour Party. The PR line practically writes itself, and it was in a rare moment of lucidity that Corbyn (and team) realised as much and reacted appropriately.

She would have been defeated in that vote...
As I said, it would still have been short lived, the GE would still go ahead.

If all you had in mind was something so inconsequential, yeah, I guess she would have lost a vote in the Commons. But it's no defeat in any substantive sense.

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I also don't see how local elections have been undermined. The results of those elections stand whatever the outcome of the general election.

Ooookay.

You don't agree?

Corbyn points out to May that her focus must be on Brexit. As she had in her mind rightly pointed out to the SNP another vots at this point in time is merely a distraction from the important work to be done on the EU negotiation. She has the necessary majority to get this done, even has a purely advisory parliamentary vote in the bag. etc.

Then to get her election she has to either call a no confidence vote in the HoC or risk getting defeated in the Lords. Whatever she chooses the opportunity for Corbyn is to claim that he was acting in the public interest to protect voters from an unnecessary expense and distraction, while forcing the government to 'get on with the day job'. He could lay it on by pointing out that they wanted to get rid of the manifesto binds that prevent them from taking more money from 'heard working people' as had been tried in the Budget, and that this is a govt. that has run out of ideas and wants to protect themselves from the judgement of the people, but using the smoke screen of Brexit to get 5 years to develop a strategy.

Meanwhile he could actually prepare for a planned election at the end of the year, if May really was prepared to go through with one that late in the Brexit negotiations.

May made the GE about Brexit from the start. That doesn't make sense and has been called out, but that's May's line and I'm sure she will stick to it. Opposing the GE is then opposing Brexit to anyone who bought the May spin.

How can it ever be a good election strategy to oppose an election?

Tracer Tong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

I don't see how May would have been 'defeated' by forcing through an election. Indeed, that could easily have been spun as a necessary measure to overcome the panicked obstruction of a tremulous Labour Party. The PR line practically writes itself, and it was in a rare moment of lucidity that Corbyn (and team) realised as much and reacted appropriately.

She would have been defeated in that vote...
As I said, it would still have been short lived, the GE would still go ahead.

If all you had in mind was something so inconsequential, yeah, I guess she would have lost a vote in the Commons. But it's no defeat in any substantive sense.

That's exactly what I explained originally, the GE would still have gone ahead. I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. But it's your opinion, not mine, that it would be inconsequential. The result would have been the same, an election eventually, but the public perception - May not getting her way, the arguments over whether she was right or justified to call the GE, etc - may have been altered.

Tracer Tong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:I also don't see how local elections have been undermined. The results of those elections stand whatever the outcome of the general election.

Ooookay.

You don't agree?

Well no, the fact that a result is achieved in a vote does not mean the poll was not undermined by creating another poll which dominates the media and therefore public attention. Reduced participation, for example.

GrahamH wrote:

How can it ever be a good election strategy to oppose an election?

By using the opportunity created to alter the arguments. Make it unequivocally clear that Brexit is just a ruse, that any competent self-confident administration would simply have got on with the job, that it is really about giving the tories a freehand to destroy the nhs etc.

The only short term policy of the Labour party is to get rid of Corbyn, the election is merely a means to an end so of course the Labour party is going to want an election. With Corbyn gone they can look at the 10 year + programme to try and rebuild the party (or start a new one/merge).

The election benefits the Labour party (purge the Trots) and the Conservative party (strengthen May position). It also allows the Lib Dem's to have some sort of recovery. It benefits the SNP in their independence bid. Let's face it the only ones who don't benefit out of this election are the British people. Isn't democracy great!

mrjonno wrote:The only short term policy of the Labour party is to get rid of Corbyn, the election is merely a means to an end so of course the Labour party is going to want an election. With Corbyn gone they can look at the 10 year + programme to try and rebuild the party (or start a new one/merge).

Which begs the question why did Corbyn agree to supporting the GE.

Labour MP's would probably have voted for an election anyway regardless of what Corbyn wants and lets face it an opposition given a chance to become the government is not something you are meant to refuse. Corbyn is a weak joke anyway but that would have made him look even weaker

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The only short term policy of the Labour party is to get rid of Corbyn, the election is merely a means to an end so of course the Labour party is going to want an election. With Corbyn gone they can look at the 10 year + programme to try and rebuild the party (or start a new one/merge).

Which begs the question why did Corbyn agree to supporting the GE.

What is a general election if not a platform to talk about issues? It's the one thing his party, the media and conservatives have managed to stop him doing, finally he can bypass them all and speak directly to the voters for a change.

fisherman wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

mrjonno wrote:The only short term policy of the Labour party is to get rid of Corbyn, the election is merely a means to an end so of course the Labour party is going to want an election. With Corbyn gone they can look at the 10 year + programme to try and rebuild the party (or start a new one/merge).

Which begs the question why did Corbyn agree to supporting the GE.

What is a general election if not a platform to talk about issues? It's the one thing his party, the media and conservatives have managed to stop him doing, finally he can bypass them all and speak directly to the voters for a change.

That's very true. And it's possible the expected disaster for Labour won't come to pass, I suppose.

mrjonno wrote:The only short term policy of the Labour party is to get rid of Corbyn, the election is merely a means to an end so of course the Labour party is going to want an election. With Corbyn gone they can look at the 10 year + programme to try and rebuild the party (or start a new one/merge).

The election benefits the Labour party (purge the Trots) and the Conservative party (strengthen May position). It also allows the Lib Dem's to have some sort of recovery. It benefits the SNP in their independence bid. Let's face it the only ones who don't benefit out of this election are the British people. Isn't democracy great!

That's ... actually a pretty solid and concise analysis of the situation. I hope this isn't a trend, and normal service will soon be resumed (the obligatory reference to Trots is a promising sign that this is just a blip).

I'd differ only in saying that, with Brexit set to unravel, it needn't take anything like as long as ten years, or even the five of May's new term. If Labour can get in a social democrat without Corbyn's culturally far-left baggage -- the "our friends Hamas" comments, Little Red Book showboating, and fear they're about to be taxed until they squeal will've spooked plenty in the press who might otherwise have been sympathetic -- there's every chance that the Blairite chunk of the establishment will defect.

That happens, and we could see another general quite speedily.

When Brexit goes tits up I not convinced the Labour party are going to be in a position to take advantage of it. Hopefully the Tory party will split into a globalist pro capitalist wing and link up with the Lib Dem's and the the more moderate elements of the former Labour party to form a new political organisation.

Best case scenario is we manage to get a US style Democrat (pro business but not insane) party versus a bunch of religious nuts , pro crony business Republican party. That's not the dream of the Corbynites but its about the best option that is likely to be on the tables.

The English working classes lead by the Sun/Daily Mirror are not going to vote for a social democratic party, absolutely delusional to pretend otherwise

How much will the extra police cost ? Shadow home secretary - Erm we think will be 3p so we are ordering 10 billion extra officers no I mean 10 million or is it 80 million or 8. Dont worry the Labour plan is err fully 'costed'.

Yeah, poor Di Abbott. Has six interviews, handles five of them perfectly well & gets all the figures right, then has a brain fart & fucks up on LBC, and that's all that matters. It reminds me of John the Sheepshagger, poor bloke.

chairman bill wrote:Yeah, poor Di Abbott. Has six interviews, handles five of them perfectly well & gets all the figures right, then has a brain fart & fucks up on LBC, and that's all that matters. It reminds me of John the Sheepshagger, poor bloke.

It is one thing that pisses me off about the media. They pretend to be all serious journalists, yet they treat it like a game. Someone makes a single and irrelevant mistake (because let's face it memorising every figure that is written down somewhere and calculated on a spreadsheet should not be a priority, and only is because interviewers like to catch people out) and they focus entirely on that rather than the actual content of the interview.

It's like on Dragon's Den where they don't allow them to bring notes just so they can get clips of people failing to remember the figures.

I remember they did it to Natalie Bennett at the last election. Millions of people saw the one "car-crash" interview. Hardly anyone saw the hundreds of perfectly good ones.

Cé la vie.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic if the other side were sensible too. Diane Abbott would gleefully round on the Lib-Dems if they did a muck up like this - I'm sure she would arrogantly dismiss them as lightweights.

On this site most are also merciless - so I have no moral issue taking the micky here too. Of course it was a meaningless screw up.

minininja wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Yeah, poor Di Abbott. Has six interviews, handles five of them perfectly well & gets all the figures right, then has a brain fart & fucks up on LBC, and that's all that matters. It reminds me of John the Sheepshagger, poor bloke.

It is one thing that pisses me off about the media. They pretend to be all serious journalists, yet they treat it like a game. Someone makes a single and irrelevant mistake (because let's face it memorising every figure that is written down somewhere and calculated on a spreadsheet should not be a priority, and only is because interviewers like to catch people out) and they focus entirely on that rather than the actual content of the interview.

It's like on Dragon's Den where they don't allow them to bring notes just so they can get clips of people failing to remember the figures.

I remember they did it to Natalie Bennett at the last election. Millions of people saw the one "car-crash" interview. Hardly anyone saw the hundreds of perfectly good ones.

It was very obvious that at the point of answering she had not the faintest idea was to what the answer was. It may have 'gone clean out of her head' - far better to say that than given answers that suggested a very basic lack of mathematical ability. That said as shadow home secretary, this was her flagship policy on the day of its release - pretty incompetent not to be fully on top of that topic on that day.