UK General Election

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Really? You think Labour have any chance of winning. Or maybe the Lib Dems, or UKIP?

May is pushing the idea that the election needs to happen now because there's too much division in Westminster for effective Brexit negotiations. Do you think being in the run-up to an election makes Parliament seem stronger and more united? Or less?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Brexit will have happened in 2 years. This is almost certainly going to be a bad thing for the UK. There was going to be an election the year after. So the Tories would be trying to get re-elected with the whole country reeling from the fallout of Brexit, weakening their position considerably. And who knows what the opposition will be like at that point?

Now, however, they're riding high in the polls, the Lib Dems haven't recovered from the Coalition, Labour is toothless and falling apart, and she can frame voting Tory as being the only way to ensure a good result of Brexit - meaning people are even more likely to vote for them. So they get elected now, and then there's not another election until 2022, 3 years after Brexit, giving the country time to recover and people enough time to forget the reason for the country being up the crapper in the first place.

Basically, doing it like this guarantees them control of the country for the next 5 years, and gives them the best chance of winning the next election, too.

The sad thing is a sizeable amount of the population will fall for the line that voting Tory is the only way to get a good deal from Brexit. People are idiots like that.

 

[ddt]

Really? You think Labour have any chance of winning. Or maybe the Lib Dems, or UKIP?

Of course not. I think the Tories will even get a 2/3 majority in the Commons.

But a EU negotiator can still say: I don't know whom I'll be dealing with.

The EU negotiators have an obligation to negotiate as Art 50 has been triggered in line with the constitution of the EU. They cannot refuse to negotiate. Of course they don't have to agree to anything and they could certainly use the election as an excuse to be non-commital but then it would be them that was acting in bad faith.

They can always hide behind: there's no-one to talk to. Israel has been touting that line for decades and they get away with it.

Not unless whatever work done till now is going to be thrown away. I assume they've agreed on important stuff like meeting times, locations, biscuit preferences and scheduling of lunches?

Sure. And the first big nut to crack is the meta-negotiations. The EU wants to first negotiate the divorce settlement, and only after that the future (trade) relations. The current UK government wants to do those in parallel.

As it is, the EU have a summit on 29 April to determine their common position vis-a-vis the UK, and that will likely still stand. But that's not dependent on what the UK does.

 

[Belgian thought]

Brexit will have happened in 2 years. This is almost certainly going to be a bad thing for the UK. There was going to be an election the year after. So the Tories would be trying to get re-elected with the whole country reeling from the fallout of Brexit, weakening their position considerably. And who knows what the opposition will be like at that point?

Now, however, they're riding high in the polls, the Lib Dems haven't recovered from the Coalition, Labour is toothless and falling apart, and she can frame voting Tory as being the only way to ensure a good result of Brexit - meaning people are even more likely to vote for them. So they get elected now, and then there's not another election until 2022, 3 years after Brexit, giving the country time to recover and people enough time to forget the reason for the country being up the crapper in the first place.

Basically, doing it like this guarantees them control of the country for the next 5 years, and gives them the best chance of winning the next election, too.

I would say the above nails it for the motive. It is a clever strategy.

 

[Architect]

I would say the above nails it for the motive. It is a clever strategy.

Not if you want to keep Scotland in the Union, it's not.

Plus the Scottish parties were already in campaign mode so have a running start.

 

[MikeG]

I feel sorry for the traditional Labour voters. First they see the party taken over by an incompetent socialist, now they'll see their party effectively destroyed and pushed out of Westminster.

I'm not so sure you're right. I mean, they'll get slaughtered in vote share, and will lose heavily in terms of seats, but there are 150-plus seats in which Labour could put up a donkey and still win. Until there is a credible alternative left of centre party, Labour will hold a rump of seats, come what may. It might even be enough seats for Corbyn to hold on to the leader's job, which would be just great for the Conservatives, catastrophic for Labour, and sad for democracy.

 

[Belgian thought]

Not if you want to keep Scotland in the Union, it's not.

Plus the Scottish parties were already in campaign mode so have a running start.

Were she to win more seats, how many in Parliament would give Scotland the right to a second referendum?

 

[Belgian thought]

Personally, I hope the young of the UK have taken note and will turn out to vote, use their technological/social networking know-how to throw a spanner in the works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZgkLeFETY4

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Were she to win more seats, how many in Parliament would give Scotland the right to a second referendum?

Not sure I fully understand the question. There is no number of snp seats that would give Scotland the right to a referendum in the view of Westminster.

The right to a referendum was won by the Scottish government at the last Scottish elections.

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[funk de fino]

It may just be a delaying tactic on Scotref. It can probably quite legitimately now be parked for 3 months as a question.

Any reduction in SNP representation (and lets face it the only way they can go is down from their current position) can be spun to strengthen their position that Scottish people don't agree with the SNP on this one.

In that regard its maybe tactically fairly clever. It'll be interesting to see if the SNP have prepared for such a possibility and what their reaction may be.

I guess the base model response is fight it like a normal GE on a Scotref ticket and use a majority of MPs being returned as a clear mandate although I don't see how that gains them anything from today.

A high risk move might well be to use the GE as Indyref and run on a ticket of negotiating independence with Westminster. This used to be their position but they have since backed away towards the referendum approach.

I'm not sure what legitimacy that move would have with a few dozen Westminster MPs.

Could they double whammy it and have a Scottish Election on the same day in the hope of getting a clear SNP majority in Holyrood and using that as a mandate to declare independence? I don't think that would work either.

So, since the Tories have nothing to lose in Scotland and the SNP little to gain it might well be that May thinks there is not much at risk from her point of view. She can probably only end up in a stronger position.

The short timeframe on this probably also causes problems for any large scale tactical voting or political coalitions to form but I guess it could be a possibility. A Bremain Alliance forming might be interesting.

I think the "Now is not the time" dismissal will stick in the craw of a lot of Scots right now. It could reduce support from its current level. Added to that the current stramash with Ruth and the rape clause then it could be a bad move.

 

[Belgian thought]

Not sure I fully understand the question. There is no number of snp seats that would give Scotland the right to a referendum in the view of Westminster.

The right to a referendum was won by the Scottish government at the last Scottish elections.

"The Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, setting out the arrangements for this referendum, was passed by the Scottish Parliament in November 2013, following an agreement between the Scottish and the United Kingdom governments"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Again an agreement with Westminster will have to precede any referendum thus adding time.

Can Scotland ask for a referendum before the divorce from the EU is through? If not, again more time.

 

[Garrison]

A couple of thoughts. May is doing this to bump up her majority in Parliament with a bunch of shiny new backbenchers eager to climb the ranks and thus not disposed to be labelled as rebels or troublemakers. They can be counted on to follow the party line and bury an malcontents when it comes to controversial legislation.

This election probably won't kill Labour off anymore than 1983 did, or 1997 did with the Conservatives. it may even be a good thing in that it limits the time available to Corbyn to really screw the party up.

As to Brexit, it really makes no odds. We're doomed to the hardest of hard Brexits and a couple of months lost in negotiating while everyone waits for the election results won't make a blind bit of difference.

 

[Belgian thought]

...
As to Brexit, it really makes no odds. We're doomed to the hardest of hard Brexits and a couple of months lost in negotiating while everyone waits for the election results won't make a blind bit of difference.

Agreed, political survival is showing its true self.

 

[ddt]

May cited as one of the reasons for this early elections: "Labour threatened to vote against the final agreement with the EU".

Wait-a-minute.

That she thinks this is a problem implies that she views the final vote Parliament will have over the agreement as a foregone conclusion: anyone should vote in favour, and now already promise to do so, whatever may come. So why vote at all if you think the function of Parliament is the only be a bunch of yes-(wo)men?

This puts her in the same league, in democratic views, as Erdogan and Putin.

 

[ddt]

Were she to win more seats, how many in Parliament would give Scotland the right to a second referendum?

No number.

And in the 2015 elections, the SNP won 56 out of 59 Scottish constituencies. It's hardly possible tot win more.

 

[Garrison]

May cited as one of the reasons for this early elections: "Labour threatened to vote against the final agreement with the EU".

Wait-a-minute.

That she thinks this is a problem implies that she views the final vote Parliament will have over the agreement as a foregone conclusion: anyone should vote in favour, and now already promise to do so, whatever may come. So why vote at all if you think the function of Parliament is the only be a bunch of yes-(wo)men?

This puts her in the same league, in democratic views, as Erdogan and Putin.

She has shown a disturbing disdain for the courts and parliament. Remember the 'Great Repeal Bill' will allow her to rewrite a huge raft of previously EU based legislation without any reference to parliament whatsoever.

 

[MikeG]

....... Brexits and a couple of months lost in negotiating while everyone waits for the election results won't make a blind bit of difference.

Why would you think there will be a couple of months off? There will be no substantive negotiations until the German elections are over anyway.

 

[MikeG]

.......This puts her in the same league, in democratic views, as Erdogan and Putin.

Hyperbolic bollocks. She is putting her ideas to a general election. She is entitled to want to put her point of view forward, and she will be judged on it by the electorate. There is nothing undemocratic in that at all.

 

[dudalb]

May has played this very cleverly, IMO. Corbyn couldn't lead a party to win a jam competition, and the LibDems are still tainted by their broken promises in coalition. With the Tories at 42% in the polls, she gets to take a massive majority to European negotiations.

As a country, we're utterly **********.

Exactly. If you see you opponent is in a weakened state, that is when you attack.
Seven years is too long. Should be four. Fixed terms have their advantages.