Unity doesn’t fall from the sky. You must build it every day. We’ve built it together for six months; it wasn’t easy.
Two Conservative prime ministers gambled and lost in the space of 12 months in the mistaken expectation of party advantage. But May is what you might call a slow learner.
Raj Persaud and Adrian Furnham point to a 2003 study which argues that the timing of an election tells the electorate how confident the government feels about the future. Both the article and the paper are worth a read, but the short version is this:
- We all know that the government knows more than we know about how things are likely to pan out.
- So we tend to assume that a competent and confident (or even a strong and stable) government is not going to feel the need to dash to the polls. This is borne out by looking at past election timings.
- So when a government does call a snap election, it’s because the Prime Minister thinks that things are going to start going very badly in the near future. This is also borne out by past election timings.
- And deep down, regardless of the ratings when the election is called, we realise this
When Theresa May called the election in April, it was widely assumed that she would win a landslide. What has happened instead is that the electorate called her bluff.
While reporting on the Belgian reaction to the UK election result, and providing a bit of context, VRT mentions that Theresa May called the election in order to strengthen her hand in the Brexit negotiations by increasing her majority in the British Parliament.
However, things didn’t quite go to plan
Look, I know a lot of bleeding hearts are always appalled by the sight of the Conservative party in pursuit, as a wounded leader desperately tries to get back to its foxhole. But I’m afraid those hand-wringers simply don’t understand the traditions involved or the wonderful community bonds that are forged over the activity. Well done to May for supporting its return.
Well that didn’t happen, did it?
Instead we discovered that, far from being strong and stable, May is weak, wobbly and terrified of encountering actual voters. Corbyn, on the other hand, has had a spectacular campaign. I remain skeptical of both the man and his agenda, but it cannot be denied that he is able to find and fire up supporters, and get them to go out and vote. This proves, if nothing else, that campaigns really do matter:
Theresa May ran what was perhaps the worst campaign in recent political history—robotic, cliché-ridden, condescending, slapdash and otherwise awful. By contrast Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn ran an inspired campaign. He started off with the huge advantage that expectations were so low; if he didn’t devour a baby on the screen people were pleasantly surprised. But as the election proceeded he turned into an impressive campaigner. He dealt with hostile interviewers with a zen-like calm. He explained his beliefs patiently. Mrs May’s rallies were abysmal affairs. She frequently imported party apparatchiks to pretend to be real people. Mr Corbyn’s rallies by contrast were thrilling—huge crowds of the party faithful flocked to see their leader.
The knives are already out for Theresa May and I really don’t see her surviving as leader of the Conservative Party until the end of the year. At the time of writing this post, it looks like she is trying to come to a deal with the DUP to stay in power but I don’t see this lasting for long. Much of her party have been keeping their heads down while she looked likely to remain in power, but now they’ve scented blood and the more liberal and tolerant (Ruth Davidson) wing of the Tory party are going to bring her down quickly if she cedes to much to the Irish Unionists. And if she doesn’t, they’ll bring her down slowly.
Having voted for Brexit by a small majority last year, it appears that the electorate aren’t as keen on driving the UK economy over a cliff as May had assumed. While Labour are still favouring exiting the EU, they also have their own red lines (such as retaining access to the single market) which has the potential to complicate things and cause no end of delays. As long as Labour are willing to work with other parties, including the more moderate wing of the Conservatives, they should be able to ensure that the May will have to pay more attention to Parliament than she does to the tabloids.
The rest of May’s ‘red Tory’ agenda is, of course, toast. Any dream of marching into Labour heartlands and hoovering up disaffected voters has been revealed to be nothing more than an over-excited fantasy. Labour Ukippers have gone back to Labour, Tory Ukippers have gone back to the Tories and UKIP have finally shuffled off it’s mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. Which is nice.
Against this background and the much vaunted (by most of the media) return to two-party politics, the Lib Dems have done well to increase their total seats. I have to admit that, at the start of the campaign, I expected them to do better than 15 MPs. With hindsight, though, I think the election was too early for a party that bet the house on opposition to Brexit. Brexit hasn’t happened yet, the negotiations haven’t even started and, while I still think it will be a disaster, the disaster hasn’t happened yet.
I find myself feeling pretty positive about this result. The Conservatives definitely deserved to lose but I remain unconvinced that Labour deserved to win. And that’s what happened. So well played Britain and here’s to Round Two in October.
The Guardian reports that Theresa May is threatening to rip up human rights laws in order to try and gain control of the security agenda in the run-up to the general election.
Here’s the giveaway:
Despite having previously said she believed the police and security services had the resources they needed to deal with terrorism, she went on to announce details of a proposed crackdown on terrorism at a rally of Conservative activists in Slough.
Theresa May does not believe what she is saying. She is panicking about her shrinking poll lead and making up policy on the hoof.
This is how bad laws are made.
She was sincere, too! Why couldn’t they see that? She had plenty of convictions. It was just that they kept changing all the time.
Julian Assange has indicated he may guest host a US radio show from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
The WikiLeaks founder said he was “looking into” filling in for Sean Hannity after the presenter offered him a one-off chance to host his conservative talkshow.
I have no idea whether Assange’s efforts in support of Trumps election campaign makes him a witting or unwitting tool of the Russians. But this latest story removes any vestige of doubt that he is, indeed, a tool.