Theresa May calls for a snap election.

[Lilbaz]

General election called for June 8th in Britain.

Didn't see that coming.

 

[Orba]

Makes sense for her though, Labour are in a mess atm so her chances of a win are pretty high.

 

[Lilbaz]

Might kill off ukip aswell. The message will be vote tory and see us leave or let lab/lib dems in to derail it.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Jeeze are the Brits really this up in arms over that leave vote?! If they didn't want out why did they even ask the question?

 

[Lilbaz]

Jeeze are the Brits really this up in arms over that leave vote?! If they didn't want out why did they even ask the question?

It's the opposite. May is leading in the polls. Labour are a mess, it's only lib dems who are pledging to stop us leaving and although there is strong support for remain it will not be anywhere near enough to get lib dems into power.
May wants to cement her position and have enough time to see through brexit without worrying about a general election part way through.

 

[hopeless]

All she needs is for the other parties to declare where they stand where Brexit is concerned and see them demonstrate why they're all hopeless!

I wonder what brought this on?

Sounds like she lost her temper with someone!

 

[Lilbaz]

All she needs is for the other parties to declare where they stand where Brexit is concerned and see them demonstrate why they're all hopeless!

I wonder what brought this on?

Sounds like she lost her temper with someone!

Probably because it looks like she'll secure a big majority. Then she wont have to worry about back bencher revolts or article 50 going to parliament for agreement.

A lot of labour voters voted for brexit. I know a lot (one a former member of the communist party) that will vote tory for the first time just to ensure brexit goes through.

 

[hopeless]

Makes me wonder if the SNP's attempts to provoke her brought this about?

No matter what EU claims Scotland isn't going to like what awaits them if they do choose to remain a part of the EU since independence is their aim so this might be Theresa May's way of testing the waters to see how they react.

The fact she also jerks Corbyn's chain in the process is probably a bonus!

 

[Marvolo]

So in Britain the PM can call for an election when the mood strikes them? Whats the election for exactly?

 

[hopeless]

So in Britain the PM can call for an election when the mood strikes them? Whats the election for exactly?

As it stands she would be serving the rest of Cameron's term this if she was successful would give her not just the full 5 year term but also full confirmation as Prime Minister rather than being the same as Gordon Brown or Tony Blair when they first became Prime Minister.

It would enforce her position in the EU's eyes making her more relevant since it should solidify her support and silence her critics.

Still think someone pissed her off though!

 

[Marvolo]

Does the UK not have a traditional set date for their PM election?

 

[hippie_hunter]

So in Britain the PM can call for an election when the mood strikes them? Whats the election for exactly?

The PM needs a supermajority in Parliament to agree. In this case, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Greens have agreed with the Conservatives to call for a snap election.

Does the UK not have a traditional set date for their PM election?

No set date, but elections have to be held within 5 years of the previous one.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Also I'm hoping that this election will teach Lefties to stop supporting idiots like Corbyn and Sanders.

 

[Marvolo]

The PM needs a supermajority in Parliament to agree. In this case, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Greens have agreed with the Conservatives to call for a snap election.



No set date, but elections have to be held within 5 years of the previous one.

How very odd.

 

[Klank]

Also I'm hoping that this election will teach Lefties to stop supporting idiots like Corbyn and Sanders.

Sanders is popular and Corbyn is...not.

There's differences in their politics, how they came to prominence and definitely in their execution where you can easily see why people still believe Bernie would have won against Trump whereas even at his most popular it was still going to be an uphill battle for Corbyn.

The main two differences between them is that Bernie to some degree benefited from the media treating him as a nonentity until he'd gained a huge following. Corbyn had extreme negative press from the jump.

The other is that Brexit has damaged Corbyn's support among the left that gave him two huge leadership victories. The older Labour voters who voted for Brexit feel betrayed that Corbyn supported remain, the younger voters are disillusioned that Corbyn hasn't done anything to fight it and suspect he is secretly in favor of it given his Euro-skeptic past.

That being said I'm not sure that the election will be as big as a washout for Labour as many are predicting. What support he has left does seem very driven and I'm seeing a lot of people who say they will grudgingly vote for Labour to end Tory austerity. Now being "less bad than the other guy" isn't really a big vote winner - just ask Hillary - however I hope that if they do better than expected Labour don't abandon Corbyn policies with the next leader.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Sanders is only popular because he's never been properly scrutinized.

 

[hopeless]

The Liberal Democrats still don't understand Brexit means Brexit and use any excuse to ignore when they shared power with Cameron they screwed over their voting base for the opportunity (University costs).

Corbin or even Cameron should have remained neutral during the referendum, the leadership challenge Corbyn faced should have been against a Leave supporter not that Welsh Remainer making the entire challenge for the Labour leadership a complete farce!

It took Gove backstabbing Boris to more or less hand May her current role and now she wants to emphasise she is Britain's best hope and sadly giving I'm not a Tory supporter she is!

 

[Klank]

Sanders is only popular because he's never been properly scrutinized.

I alluded to that. I said that the media largely ignoring him until he'd amassed a huge following was something of a plus for him. I'm guessing some in hindsight are upset they didn't Corbyn him straight away.

That being said the DNC did scrutinize him pretty thoroughly during the primaries, true they didn't go straight for the jugular but again I'm not sure it would have worked. Do you think all the stadiums of people who chanted his name would so easily believe attack ads?

All this is a moot point anyway. As Corbyn is finding out it doesn't matter why someone is popular or unpopular in the end

The Liberal Democrats still don't understand Brexit means Brexit and use any excuse to ignore when they shared power with Cameron they screwed over their voting base for the opportunity (University costs).

Oh they understand it alright. After all they say they would form another coalition government with the Tories who are committed to the hardest of Brexits.

Call me naive but I'd still like to think the first Lib Dem/Conservative coalition was done in the genuine belief they could be a moderating force on the Tories however after that didn't pan out at all considering doing it again is nothing more than a shameless attempt at grabbing power. The Lib Dems have positioned themselves as the anti-brexit party, how exactly are we to take them seriously if they are willing to jump into bed with the party they fundamentally oppose on their #1 issue.

Corbin or even Cameron should have remained neutral during the referendum, the leadership challenge Corbyn faced should have been against a Leave supporter not that Welsh Remainer making the entire challenge for the Labour leadership a complete farce!

It took Gove backstabbing Boris to more or less hand May her current role and now she wants to emphasise she is Britain's best hope and sadly giving I'm not a Tory supporter she is!

I'm not sure how it could have been enforced but I definitely think that the EU referendum would have been better served had the campaigns been led by less well known politicians thus the Leave/Remain campaigns wouldn't have carried any of the baggage of who was arguing for them. I know a few people who voted leave to "stick it to Cameron and Osborn" - their inclusion helped strengthen the myth that voting leave was being anti-establishment. At very least without the likes of Farage and Boris the rhetoric might not have been so divisive and Jo Cox may still be alive.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean that Labour should have put up a a pro-Leave candidate against Corbyn in their leadership election. Labour was a remain party, there's few Labour MPs that are genuinely Leavers to put up against him and there's a belief among many that Corbyn was secretly in favour of Brexit given his Euro skeptic past anyway. The whole leadership contest itself was a farce. The Tories were slowly unraveling and a bunch of Labour MPs decide to blow up their own party. At most that Leadership contest should have been the end of it; if they felt Corbyn was a lemon then they should have made lemonade.

 

[hopeless]

The problem is had Corbyn's opponent had been representing Leave it would have made his victory more relevant.

His actual opponent actually ignored what the referendum result actually meant and only served to make the resulting leadership challenge completely ridiculous since he clearly shouldn't have been involved due to the resulting detriment to the Labour party.

Corbyn needed justification and doesn't have it and that's why the odds are really against him.

Makes you wonder what it will take to completely turn the tables, would an actual tv debate be the decider?

 

[Klank]

The problem is had Corbyn's opponent had been representing Leave it would have made his victory more relevant.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. How would Corbyn's victory be more relevant against a Pro-Leave candidate?

His actual opponent actually ignored what the referendum result actually meant and only served to make the resulting leadership challenge completely ridiculous since he clearly shouldn't have been involved due to the resulting detriment to the Labour party.

It was already ridiculous. A not insignificant amount of Conservatives don't want Brexit either and the party was visibly starting to unravel post referendum result. That was the time Labour should have been putting pressure on the Conservatives instead Labour chose to very publicly tear strips out of each other.

What makes the situation even more ****ed up is that almost every MP that was against Corbyn publicly stated that they knew that he had clear support among the party members and getting rid of him was highly unlikely. So why did they drag their own party through the mud it if they knew they had practically no chance of getting the outcome the wanted?

Corbyn needed justification and doesn't have it and that's why the odds are really against him.

Justification to what? Lead the party? Winning two leadership elections is pretty much all the justification he needs.

That's what I would assume is at the heart of May calling a snap election. It's to shut up the people who say that with the conservatives holding a small majority and May herself being un-elected by the people she has no mandate for a hard Brexit. If she wins and increases the number of Conservative seats she has all the authority to tell these people to get lost and that includes the members of her own party.

Well...that and she has an unprecedented number of her own MPs under investigation for election fraud. Another election would kinda render that meaningless in the eyes of public.

Oh and some are speculating that we might have another recession in the next few years. She's going to want to be properly elected before that happens to avoid any consequences.

Makes you wonder what it will take to completely turn the tables, would an actual tv debate be the decider?

You mean in the upcoming general election?

I'd argue the 2010 ones were very good for Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems had the biggest vote share since their party founded and I'd argue that was in no small part to the TV debate in which he came across very well. (Of course he would end up pissing all that good will away with the coalition) It's possible another TV debate another party leader could also impress and emerge as an unlikely vote spoiler.

For what Corbyn lacks in oomph in his regular interviews he is passionate when debating. If you watch through PMQs he generally argues his points very well but then the news always condense it down to May's final statement which is usually a Thatcher-esque joke and declares she got the better of him. A TV debate would be the first time a lot of people would see him actually debate and since lack of passion is one the key problems people have with him seeing him debate May could persuade reluctant Labour voters and May herself couldn't get away with simply having the last word.

Of course it's all a moot point as Theresa May has refused TV debates. She also met with Paul Dacre before going on holiday were I assume they discussed her plan for a snap election and how the Mail press were going to spin it. I'd imagine the Mail, Sun and Sky will say it's a mark of strength she's not giving in to debate demands from the traitors and saboteurs etc. Looks like ITV will have one without her for what it's worth but I doubt Corbyn, Farron and Sturgeon all broadly agreeing that May's version of Brexit will be damaging will make for compelling viewing.

 

[chamber-music]

May called the election because she is all but confirmed to win. Winning legitimizes her as Prime Minister. I don't think anyone has particularly strong feelings for May. She isn't hated but she isn't loved either.

Outside of Corbyn's hardcore base he has no support. Even Left leaning Scots will probably vote SNP rather than Labour in the general election even though they aren't ideologically that different. Just like David Milliband, Labour keeps voting for leaders that are never going to win over the wider electorate. Tony Blair appealed to people outside of the party faithful.

Lib Dems are still going to remain minor league.

UKIP are irrelevant as the Tories have stolen their position. UKIP without Farage is also a trainwreck.

 

[hopeless]

I meant justification because i don't consider his eventual opponent a true test of his leadership but rather a piss poor attempt to keep him in charge when a contest with someone who truly voted Leave would demonstrate he was still a suitable leader!

Interesting point I'd rather see them debating, but not Farron after watching him babble for all he's worth deliberately hogging the limelight and repeatedly refusing to come to the point I'd rather not waste my time watching him waste everyone's time with a TV debate even the SNP Leader deserves better than that and I'm no fan of hers either!

 

[hippie_hunter]

I alluded to that. I said that the media largely ignoring him until he'd amassed a huge following was something of a plus for him. I'm guessing some in hindsight are upset they didn't Corbyn him straight away.

That being said the DNC did scrutinize him pretty thoroughly during the primaries, true they didn't go straight for the jugular but again I'm not sure it would have worked. Do you think all the stadiums of people who chanted his name would so easily believe attack ads?

All this is a moot point anyway. As Corbyn is finding out it doesn't matter why someone is popular or unpopular in the end.

The DNC never scrutinized Bernie. They made their preference for Hillary blatant, but they never scrutinized him out of fear of alienating the Bernouts.

Also most hard core Bernie supporters are delusional AF. They elevated to cult like status who refuse to accept any weaknesses or flaws of Sanders and his nonsensical platform and refuse to recognize the reality of the situation that would have destroyed Bernie in a general election.

 

[Raiden]

The DNC never scrutinized Bernie. They made their preference for Hillary blatant, but they never scrutinized him out of fear of alienating the Bernouts.

Also most hard core Bernie supporters are delusional AF. They elevated to cult like status who refuse to accept any weaknesses or flaws of Sanders and his nonsensical platform and refuse to recognize the reality of the situation that would have destroyed Bernie in a general election.

This is why delusional Bernie supporters like Sara Sarandon kept insisting that there's no difference between Trump and Hillary even after nearly 100 days of Trump in the WH.

 

[Matt]

That being said the DNC did scrutinize him pretty thoroughly during the primaries, true they didn't go straight for the jugular but again I'm not sure it would have worked. Do you think all the stadiums of people who chanted his name would so easily believe attack ads?

Yeah, no he wasn't. They didn't go for anything, jugular or otherwise. The Clinton campaign didn't attack Sanders, they ignored him because he was a nonentity that could never win. The smart thing to do, in retrospect, would've been to go scorched Earth and burn him to the ground.

As to the stadiums of people you reference, they like the image of Sanders. He is a Twitter candidate, appealing to the lowest kind of voter (intellectually) who like him because social media told them to. But the thing with those voters is, they are very easy to sway because they hold no strong convictions or opinions of their own. As to how they would destroy him, I will just copy and paste another post I've made as to the opposition research that exists on Bernie Sanders:

"How likeable do you think Sanders will be when his essay about women secretly enjoying/wanting to be raped is released? How about when it's widespread news that he spent his entire adult life on welfare, literally right until he got elected? He has literally made a living off of sucking the teet of the taxpayers. How do you think that plays? Or during his time on welfare, literally stealing electricity from his neighbors and forcing them to unknowingly pay increased bills while he benefited? So likeable. And let's not forget Sanders actually going to a rally for Hugo Chavez, a dictator, mass murderer, and tyrant, and calling him a great patriot. Those videos will really play well. Especially the parts where he embraces the dictator, mass murderer, and tyrant. He will have the Latino vote locked up with that, I'm sure.

There is more, but none of this came out because Sanders was never realistically going to win. Clinton wasn't going to hit hard out of fear of alienating his supporters, not when he wasn't ever a real threat. And Republicans wanted to prop him up to advance the "Clinton screwed Sanders" narrative. But in a competitive primary or a general election, it all comes out --- and it would sink Sanders over night."

Sanders is not a strong candidate. He is a loud candidate who is very good at drawing attention to himself, but he won't survive the scrutiny of a real a presidential campaign. Clinton never pushed him because there was, at the time, no benefit to her in doing so. All it would do is further divide the Party. But if he tries to run again, all of this comes out.