
UK Prime Minister Theresa May announces intention to hold general election - m1
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/apr/18/corbyn-cressida-dick-met-police-a-gun-may-not-have-saved-pc-killed-in-westminster-terror-attack-says-new-met-chief-politics-live
======
headmelted
Actually this is just good business for the Tories, and I've long expected it.

The opposition is in disarray under Corbyn, and our prime minister has never
won an election. This is as easy a victory as Theresa May will ever be able to
bank on, and legitimises her leadership in the eyes of a large section of the
public. She can also claim (maybe rightly so) that she has the undisputed
majority support of the public for whatever terms she gets for a hard Brexit
from the EU.

In short; we're screwed.

~~~
tehwalrus
Vote Lib Dem. Seriously.

I am a candidate in very north london, we're all organised for this
possibility.

~~~
bogle
Yeah, 'cause you did such a sterling job last time?

~~~
Accacin
Yeah they did, in my eyes they did a great job stopping Tories doing too much
damage. I'm also one who was affected by their tuition u-turn also but I
decided to get over it.

~~~
tspiteri
And it is a bit ironic that New Labour introduced tuition fees, the Tories
were the coalition partner that wanted to increase them, but it is the Lib
Dems who caught all the flak.

~~~
bshimmin
It's understandable that they took a hammering over it: it was a tentpole
pledge, they couldn't stick to it, and they then apologised for it:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19646731](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-19646731)

~~~
tspiteri
Of course you're right. I just pointed out that the Tories and Labour did
worse on the issue and suffered less for it. But then, the Lib Dems did the
pledge and weren't able to stand up for it, so they did deserve some
punishment.

------
louisswiss
PM Theresa May on her reasoning for the snap election:

"In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we
reach with the European Union.

"The Liberal Democrats said they want to grind the business of government to a
standstill.

"The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that
formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.

"And un-elected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every
step of the way.

"If we do not hold a general election now, their political game playing will
continue."

\--------

I for one hope their 'political game playing' will only intensify in the
future. After all, _it 's their job_ to provide opposition.

Dark and scary times indeed.

~~~
cm2187
Calling an election is dark and scary times?

~~~
louisswiss
No - but communicating to the public that the reason you are calling an
election is to silence the opposition parties and other bodies holding you to
account (and espousing the view that the opposition should effectively shut up
and put up) definitely registers high on my _dark and scary times_ scale

~~~
golergka
Silencing someone with open election that would show that they have no support
doesn't sound very sinister. If anything, it sounds like the best possible way
to resolve such a situation.

~~~
louisswiss
No. This is a common (and very cunning) straw man and I hope it stems from a
position of ignorance not deceit.

 _Silencing someone_ should never be the goal. If the Conversatives are
experiencing difficulties pushing through their agenda due to opposition from
other parties, then the best way to resolve that is either via compromise _or_
by calling an election _to increase their majority in parliament_ which should
allow them to push through their agenda more easily.

Even if (arguably _especially_ if) the Conservatives win 99% of the seats in
the House of Commons, the remaining 1% should be opposing, scrutinising and
holding to account as well and as loudly as they can.

Yet Theresa May is after something different here (a tactic which we've heard
recently, but by no means exclusively, from many Brexiteers as well) - she is
implying that unless opposition parties can beat the Conservatives in a
general election, then they should put up and shut up as the public have
spoken.

That's not how democracy works.

\-----

edit: For those who don't see the straw man here, it is that while silencing
someone who is standing up for the beliefs of people who don't exist is okay,
in real life the parties who are currently opposing the government are
guaranteed to be defending a none-zero number of British citizens, who we
cannot allow to be silenced on principle (even if we act against their
wishes).

------
caoilte
Don't rule out the very real possibility that this is about heading off the
unprecedented police investigation that could lead to twenty Conservative MPs
(larger than their working majority) being sent to prison.

[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/23/conservative-
el...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/23/conservative-election-
scandal-victory-2015-expenses)

~~~
pmyteh
It's very unlikely that anybody would go to prison, even if the charges were
proved.

What this will do is remove any risk of the tainted elections being voided,
resulting in a string of difficult by-elections.

------
lordnacho
"Simple" explanation is this:

\- May isn't going to lose to Corbyn

\- May has a slim majority, meaning she has to negotiate with people within
the Conservative Party who might not agree with her on the Brexit terms.

\- She'll likely get a larger majority, so it makes it easier to deal with the
rebels.

\- For Corbyn, it's interesting. He might be facing another leadership
challenge if polls keep looking crap.

\- He wants to have an actual attempt at a GE, where he can make his case to
the public.

\- He won the leadership challenge last year, so he knows his fans are at
least loyal for now.

\- Why does Corbyn's opinion matter? Well back when Cameron did a deal with
Clegg, they did a fixed terms act, meaning elections had to happen every 5
years. This one is within 5 years of the previous, so you actually need a two-
thirds majority in Parliament to trigger it.

~~~
danmaz74
From the Guardian:

30m ago 11:44 Corbyn confirms Labour will vote for early election

Jeremy Corbyn has put out this statement about Theresa May’s announcement.

I welcome the prime minister’s decision to give the British people the chance
to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first.

Labour will be offering the country an effective alternative to a government
that has failed to rebuild the economy, delivered falling living standards and
damaging cuts to our schools and NHS.

In the last couple of weeks, Labour has set out policies that offer a clear
and credible choice for the country. We look forward to showing how Labour
will stand up for the people of Britain. Labour confirms it will vote for
early election.

~~~
simonswords82
> Labour has set out policies that offer a clear and credible choice for the
> country

Has it?? Where exactly? I've not heard a thing from Labour for months

~~~
alistair75
This is like that "If a tree falls in the woods..." thing.

If a political party announces policies and the press don't report it, did it
actually happen.

The information is out there. Unfortunately with our media the way it is, you
have to go looking for it.

[https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/854301186756882432](https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/854301186756882432)

------
skdotdan
Some people criticize May whatever she does. If she calls election, because
she wants to destroy opposition or because the election will cause more
political instability, and if she doesn't, because she is afraid of democracy
or something.

Honestly, this makes no sense at all.

~~~
GordonS
I criticise her because of her strong authoritarian views and desire to turn
the UK into an Orwelian nightmare...

~~~
JCzynski
Don't worry. 4chan has already prepared their opposing-British-Orwellian-
government outfits.

------
Nursie
In my fantasy of UK politics, the centre and centre-left parties would form an
opposition coalition ahead of the poll, proposing some radical reforms like
PR, as well as some socially progressive policies like reigning in the
surveillance state, thoroughly reviewing the drug laws, reviewing basic income
as an idea and instituting some sort of evidence-basis mandate for law-making.

I realise this is a pipe-dream, however.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
The SNP would never go for PR.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It's in their manifesto and they've campaigned for it for years.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I didn't know that.

------
s_kilk
May's reasoning is basically that there is an opposition now, and that there
should not be.

The thought of indefinite unopposed Tory rule is sickening.

~~~
talktime
The majority of the English like strong, essentially unopposed governance.
They like be to be able to choose the g'vner occasionally, but they don't want
multiple powerful factions.

~~~
clearly
Do we?

~~~
irb
I think that the majority of the country is generally less comfortable with
the idea of coalitions/minority governments/power sharing than many other
parliamentary democracies where those things happen more regularly.

Consider the run-up to the 2015 GE when it looked like Labour/Lib Dems/SNP
might be able to form a majority coalition even though the Conservatives were
likely to be the largest party - there was a lot of sneering at the idea of a
"coalition of the losers". That circumstance arises quite frequently and is
largely accepted in many other countries, as can be seen from the results of
Denmark's recent elections.

------
pluma
Conspiracy theory: May expects the Art 50 talks to not go well and having the
election after Brexit has fully played out over the next two years will damage
her approval rate. Having the election now means she doesn't have to worry
about her approval throughout the negotiations and won't have to face an
election right at the time the consequences of Brexit are felt by most voters.

~~~
IshKebab
That's less of a conspiracy and more of an obvious observation.

------
hacker_9
I used to be a Conservative supporter, but now I just look at Westminster and
wonder what the hell happened. Didn't David Cameron basically do this very
same thing only a year ago? He expected everyone to be with him and vote
Remain, and look how that turned out. Now Theresa May is literally following
in his footsteps, thinking everyone is on her side. I'm so confused.

I'm actually thinking of voting for Lib Dems for the first time in my life,
only because they said they'd hold another EU Referendum. And I say this
because I honestly don't trust any party actually want's to take us through
Brexit anymore, nor will any of them do a good job of it. I feel like a Lib
Dem government is currently the best of a bad bunch.

------
alkonaut
LibDems/Labour should just go into these elections saying "we'll keep the
kingdom together". I think there is a fair chunk of people who voted leave who
didn't actually realize they were voting for England and Wales to leave
Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than voting for the UK to leave the EU.

If Labour and LibDems play their cards right, couldn't they make these
elections about the mandate for Conservatives the break the United Kingdom
apart, rather than a mandate to negotiate with the EU.

Under those circumstances: how big an upset is needed for the election results
to be seen as a complete disqualification of the Brexit vote?

~~~
Nursie
All parties will say that though.

Plus it's not clear the Scots would actually vote to leave and the talk about
NI leaving the UK is nonsense. They voted, narrowly, to remain in the EU. Not
to remain in the EU even if that meant leaving the UK.

~~~
alkonaut
> All parties will say that though.

I don't think conservatives say that "We aren't leaving if Scotland or
Northern ireland poll even close to 50% for leaving the UK in order to remain
in the EU after a brexit vote". That would have been useful information before
the referendum.

> it's not clear the Scots wouldnactually vote

Exactly, it's very uncertain. And having a referendum with that uncertainty
was very strange. And if it _does_ become clear that the leave vote actually
did break up the UK, then the consequences should (and could!) have been known
to voters in the referendum.

~~~
Nursie
All parties will indeed say that they are pro-union and that they will do what
they can to keep things together.

Making promises on EU membership based on ideas about union seems unwarranted
though - we have no idea what the result of polls would be where it is
explicit that the choice is between UK and EU membership. Nor do the
respective parties know that "Stay in the EU outside of the UK" is even an
option - Scotland is likely to have multiple years as part of neither one
while it establishes an economic track record and a stable set of government
institutions.

------
samdoidge
Smart timing from May - this will be devastating for Corbyn.

Current polling: CON 43, LAB 25 [1]

Conservatives won the 2015 Election polling at 34% [2].

[1]
[https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9828](https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9828)

[2]
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/UK_opini...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/UK_opinion_polling_2010-2015.png)

~~~
hacker_9
Too bad polls haven't been accurate for a while now.

~~~
samdoidge
As someone who made money betting on a Trump victory - certain topics / polls.
Calling Brexit / Trump voters racist leads to a certain % of the population
not disclosing their vote, oversampling of Democrats was another issue in the
US polls.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
That not what oversampling means.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/10/25/oversampling...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/10/25/oversampling-is-used-to-study-small-groups-not-bias-poll-
results/)

~~~
samdoidge
I'm aware of what oversampling means. I was listing the 'hidden vote' and
oversampling as a reason.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
That still makes no sense.

~~~
samdoidge
Can you elaborate on what doesn't make sense?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Oversampling is a standard thing to do with polling.

There's a confused conspiracy theory that it means "adding extra votes to the
Democrat column".

This doesn't even stand up to the most cursory of examinations, as if that was
really happening then people would say "they're intentionally fudging the
results to favor the Democrats" and kick up a fuss about it. Instead they say
"oversampling Democrats", in the hope that people who don't know what that is
will think it sounds like cheating while not actually looking like idiots to
people who do know what it means. A classic dogwhistle approach to say two
things to two audiences.

You claim to know what it is, yet you say it's an "issue" (which it isn't) and
you say that at the end of a sentence claiming that there's a "shy voter"
factor leading to an undercount of Trump support. Oversampling has no logical
connection here unless you mean it in the "Democrats are cheating in the
polls" meaning. You claim that you mean it in the actual statistical meaning.
The two obvious explanations are that you don't know what it is and have been
fooled by all the chatter around it, or that you're trying to fool others
despite knowing it's nonsense. I think you don't know what it is, that's why I
provided the explanatory link a couple of comment above.

Also, the polls did not materially undercount Trump voters. The polls were
more accurate than at the last election. Some people badly mapped the
accurately predicted 3 million popular vote win to electoral college results,
but that's a different thing than polls being bad, Trump voters not wanting to
admit who they were voting for, or being intentionally skewed. On a state by
state basis polls were wrong in both directions, for various reasons, but that
cancelled out overall.

~~~
samdoidge
Ok, so when you were telling me 'that's not what oversampling means', you
meant 'I disagree with what you are saying'. I would be more inclined to
debate if you approached the disagreement in a more open fashion.

Your partisan paragraphs further make me think I will be wasting my time here,
so let's just say we have different views on the polls :).

------
gpvos
So... how big is the chance that the LibDems will promise to try to reverse
Brexit, or at least go for the softest possible Brexit, and everyone who wants
to remain votes for them, and they would get 51%, or at least enough to force
a coalition government?

Probably zero, especially given the weirdo FPTP system, but I'm curious
anyway.

------
steanne
...but she's gonna refuse scotland the chance for a quick referendum to get
THEIR house in order before the brexit?

~~~
sir_throwaway
Most Scots are against a second referendum, and against independence [1]. May
is just giving them what they want.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_indep...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling)

~~~
d4rti
If we are citing polls now then most brits were against brexit.

------
nthcolumn
She is really counting on there not being enough time for the opposition to
turn this into another vote on Brexit or a vote on Scotland or a vote on the
NHS or a vote on all of the above. We live in interesting times.

------
RugnirViking
As if the UK needed more political turmoil.

~~~
chrisseaton
I think the point is to resolve some of the turmoil and get a new government
in place with a new mandate.

~~~
bogle
I'll lay odds that Scotland at least will not be giving that mandate.
Currently the Conservaties have 1 out of 59 MPs in Westminster from north of
the border. Of course, that's irrelevant as the Tories can simply continue to
completely ignore Scotland.

~~~
headmelted
And Northern Ireland. We're still here too.

.. Not that you'd know as you never call or write anymore. :'-(

~~~
grey-area
How likely do you think the unification of Ireland is now and after brexit if
a hard border is imposed? Has sentiment shifted in that debate?

~~~
SpeakMouthWords
Very much still a meme at this point

~~~
grey-area
Why do you think it is unrealistic (asking as an outsider to NI and Eire)? I
mean on a timescale of decades of course, not in a few years.

------
Silhouette
She's announced her _intention_ to call a general election.

Before it can actually happen, she needs 2/3s of MPs to agree, according to
the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Otherwise, it's a five-year term whether the
current PM likes it or not.

This is an odd one, because if we have the election then it's likely to be a
Tory landslide, but the Tories have only a narrow majority in the House of
Commons and so need the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

On the other hand, Labour is currently led by Jeremy Corbyn, so it's entirely
possible that enough of the turkeys will vote for every day of the year to be
Christmas.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Labour have already announced they will support it.

~~~
pmontra
According to what I read here the Labour is going to lose many seats. Are
those Labour MPs so eager to lose their job? Amazing.

~~~
timrichard
More amazing if they voted against an election, with the inevitable
implication that the current regime is doing a good job and they don't want to
take over right now, thanks all the same for asking.

~~~
nicky0
This is why I have always thought the fixed term parliaments act is a
nonsense. What opposition would ever vote against the motion to call an
election?

~~~
Silhouette
One that expected to be in a worse position afterwards than before,
presumably. For example, a party whose MPs are mostly opposed to the current
leadership and think it will cost them a lot of seats they currently have if
an election is held.

~~~
nicky0
So the Labour party then.

------
johnlbevan2
A useful article to those who think "aside from saying 'Brexit means brexit' a
lot, what has Theresa May done since taking power?":

[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-
first...](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-
first-100-days-prime-minister-in-power-rated-successes-failures-nhs-
refugees-a7371471.html)

NB: The article's from October 2016 so slightly dated, but still useful

------
iaskwhy
My quick (and probably off) analysis: Tories found this timing to be the best
one to call an election based on the disarray of UKIP and Labour. Tories are
again playing politics, they want to get a good slice of UKIP vote and keep
Labour at the current level at best. I believe the only real alternative to
another May government is for Lib Dems, Labour, Green, to make a coalition
against this Tory initiative. Otherwise, should be an easy win for May.

~~~
hacker_9
Yeah it is a bit dirty, especially when she calls out all the other parties
for playing 'political games'.

------
golergka
If you don't like the idea of an election because your preferred party is
going to loose, democracy isn't for you.

------
Slamchunk
Worst possible timing, who do I vote for? I live in a tory safe seat
currently.

~~~
timrichard
I guess you're referring to a viable opposition contender where you live, but
I'm planning on supporting the most agreeable independent candidate I can
find.

No practical chance of them getting in, but it's an option when you think it's
important to vote anyway for philosophical or historical reasons.

Especially in constituencies where you could pin a red or blue rosette on a
donkey, and it would still get elected.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I've often though the best policy in a safe seat is to vote for the
opposition, no matter who you support. It just makes the seat slightly less
safe and hence your MP a bit more responsive to their constituents needs.

------
woodylondon
I knew I should have put a bet on this, we were never going to leave Europe.
Which ever parties manifesto says stay in Europe will win - end of story.

~~~
UK-AL
She would have never of called if she thought she wasn't going to win.

This is basically to get a higher majority in the commons, so things can go
through unimpeded.

~~~
Silhouette
To be fair, she wouldn't be the first PM in recent history to call a vote they
were sure they'd win and live to regret it.

The real danger for her is presumably that MPs don't give her the mandate to
hold the election at all, which would potentially mean we get yet another new
and unelected PM.

