Does May want to win?

[Newchodge]

I know that the Tories are a long way ahead in the polls, and were when she called the election (for no apparent reason).

Her campaigning so far appears to have involved, primarily, talking to conservative party members. It is interesting that the photos of her 'mass meetings' are taken with her facing the camera with 20 odd people holding conservative party banners behind her. Corbyn's meeting photos are taken from behind him with him addressing very large numbers of people. The contrast is striking and not in May's favour.

She has refused to debate direct with Corbyn on television, giving the appearance that she is frightened of him.

The manifesto is out today and initially it looks like the classic longest suicide note in history. It alienates virtually all pensioners, it alienates the middle-earners and it does nothing for the low paid.

Has she realised that she cannot possibly achieve anything over the Brexit negotiations and is too frightened to be remembered as the Prime Minister who destroyed the country?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

The manifesto is out today and initially it looks like the classic longest suicide note in history. It alienates virtually all pensioners, it alienates the middle-earners and it does nothing for the low paid.

But do the voters even know what the words like 'inflation' mean? After the Brexit vote I think that the vast mass of UK voters are ignorant, mean, jealous and stupid. Turkeys have more sense.

 

[Newchodge]

But do the voters even know what the words like 'inflation' mean? After the Brexit vote I think that the vast mass of UK voters are ignorant, mean, jealous and stupid. Turkeys have more sense.

You may well have a point!

 

[Ian J]

She has refused to debate direct with Corbyn on television, giving the appearance that she is frightened of him.

She's just following the precedent set by the Labour Party when Tony Blair refused to debate on television

 

[Ian J]

After the Brexit vote I think that the vast mass of UK voters are ignorant, mean, jealous and stupid. Turkeys have more sense.

Quite right as millions of stupid people voted to remain as a member of the German Federation

 

[SteveHa]

She's just following the precedent set by the Labour Party when Tony Blair refused to debate on television

Ahh, so it's definitely a Tory thing, then.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Quite right as millions of stupid people voted to remain as a member of the German Federation

Proves my point if you voted leave on that basis.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I know that the Tories are a long way ahead in the polls, and were when she called the election (for no apparent reason).

Her campaigning so far appears to have involved, primarily, talking to conservative party members. It is interesting that the photos of her 'mass meetings' are taken with her facing the camera with 20 odd people holding conservative party banners behind her. Corbyn's meeting photos are taken from behind him with him addressing very large numbers of people. The contrast is striking and not in May's favour.

She has refused to debate direct with Corbyn on television, giving the appearance that she is frightened of him.

The manifesto is out today and initially it looks like the classic longest suicide note in history. It alienates virtually all pensioners, it alienates the middle-earners and it does nothing for the low paid.

Has she realised that she cannot possibly achieve anything over the Brexit negotiations and is too frightened to be remembered as the Prime Minister who destroyed the country?

The sad thing is that all of these tactics work. The polls speak for themselves.

May has realised refusing to debate doesn't really make that much of a difference. Plus, there's always a risk (I'd say a likely risk) that she'd come off badly in the debates and ultimately do damage by taking part, so she's hedged her bets.

This snap poll decision will pay off, with the Conservatives likely to increase their majority. It was a gamble though, and I don't think May will get the result she was hoping for (i.e. a significantly bigger majority than she will ultimately gain).

Her gamble is quite similar to Cameron's calling of the EU referendum. He thought it was an easy win for remain. May thought this would be a landslide win for her given Corbyn's popularity at the time.

Cameron completely misjudged it and got it wrong. May, on the other hand, will not see her choice backfire in this way, but it's hardly going to be the death-knell for the opposition either.

Oh how different things could have been if Labour elected David Miliband instead of Ed...

 

[Ian J]

May has realised refusing to debate doesn't really make that much of a difference. Plus, there's always a risk (I'd say a likely risk) that she'd come off badly in the debates and ultimately do damage by taking part, so she's hedged her bets.

She has debated with Jeremy Corbyn every Wednesday lunchtime and invariably come off better

Her gamble is quite similar to Cameron's calling of the EU referendum. He thought it was an easy win for remain. May thought this would be a landslide win for her given Corbyn's popularity at the time.

I don't think that there is much of a similarity as not only is Corbyn seen as unelectable by many traditional Labour supporters with many interviewed on the television stating that they couldn't vote for any party that could see Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbot in power but UKIP is also seen as a spent force and many past UKIP voters are likely to migrate to the Conservatives.

Oh how different things could have been if Labour elected David Miliband instead of Ed...

How right you are

 

[billmccallum1957]

The harsh reality is that Labour are floundering, it's split between Corbyn and anyone else.

Many serving and ex-service people still remember Corbyn as an SeinFein/IRA sympathiser and simply refuse to vote for him.

With our current democratic system (and I use the word very loosely) we only really have Tory or Labour to choose from, too many people are still stuck in a historic voting mentality and not enough will change to make any difference.

At the last general election 66% of voters actually voted, only 37% voted tory (11 million).

If the government can be elected by 25% of the electorate, it cant really be democratic if political parties rely on ignorance and apathy rather than performance.

Its probably the only arena where you can be crap at the job but still get paid for doing it, or ripping your employers off and not getting jailed for it (except for a few minor MP's).

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Also, has anyone noticed that the Conservative manifesto is rather light on tone regarding EU immigration?

We will, therefore, continue to bear down on immigration from outside the European
Union. We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants
for family visas. We will toughen the visa requirements for students, to make sure that we
maintain high standards. We will expect students to leave the country at the end of their
course, unless they meet new, higher requirements that allow them to work in Britain
after their studies have concluded.

Leaving the European Union means, for the first time in decades, that we will be able
to control immigration from the European Union too. We will therefore establish an
immigration policy that allows us to reduce and control the number of people who come
to Britain from the European Union, while still allowing us to attract the skilled workers
our economy needs

It sounds to me like two separate policies.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: immigration from the EU is not going to decline anywhere near what many people expect post-Brexit.

Instead, it seems May will target immigration from outside the EU to bring the figures down. No doubt EU immigration will be used to sweeten the free trade agreement negotiations between the UK and EU.

And frankly, it's a wise move. If May can come out with a deal which keeps goods, services and people moving relatively freely with low tariffs, the economic damage is unlikely to be significant.

I've also noticed this:

Overseas students will remain in the immigration statistics – in line with international definitions – and within scope of the government’s policy to reduce annual net migration.

First of all, taking temporary students out of the immigration figures makes net migration look a lot less scary. In fact, it could reduce the net migration figure to nearer 160,000, which isn't far away from the 100,000 annual target.

But May has made her bed and has to lie in it. She can't be seen moving the goalposts, despite encouragement from within her own party.

Secondly though, she seems to be taking quite a tough stance on students, which is very unusual indeed. According to polls, most people actually like foreign students and don't class them as "traditional" immigrants.

They also bring billions of pounds into the UK's higher-education industry. There's a big wealth in-flow there, with students bringing tends of thousands of pounds each into the UK economy via university fees and living expenses.

But if she's included temporary students in immigration statistics, and now can't turn back, I suppose she's left with no choice but to bring those down as well.

 

[Ian J]

Its probably the only arena where you can be crap at the job but still get paid for doing it.

MPs have a long way to go to catch up with football managers who can be sacked for being useless, receive a payoff of millions and then find another mug club to employ them soon after

 

[Clinton]

Cyndy, May is a canny political operator. Her current majority in Parliament is low and is probably causing no end of headaches when it comes to getting legislation passed. She saw an opportunity with a Labour party being led by an honourable and principled man, but a party which is in disarray. She's exploiting the opportunity to capitalise on Labour's troubles to get a larger majority.

That's called politics.

Is the "strong and stable goverment" a bit naff? Yes. But you're dealing with dumb voters and if the marketing people have said that this is a simple enough slogan for the public to understand - and one that they can easily associate with the Tories - then that's what the Tories are going to use. Corbyn stands by what he believes in. The Tories, like Tony Blair, are happy to be flexible and say what's needed to win elections. But in this particular election they may not need to say much to win but they'll stick with the slogan if it'll further boost the majority they're expecting!

May doesn't need to debate with Corbyn partly because, as already stated, she debates him in Parliament, but also because in these situations the party/parties not in power have an advantage. They are defending "plans". The incumbent is defending actual results from the last several years. But I do think it's a shame she's not debating him. It would have been interesting.

With repect the manifesto - the Tories are taking full advantage of their lead in the polls. They know they are going to win so, unlike in past elections, they don't have to promise this, that and the other. So it's a "brave" manifesto, but that's only because bravery can work in this election, it wouldn't have worked in the last two!

Has she realised that she cannot possibly achieve anything over the Brexit negotiations and is too frightened...

She's already said that if she doesn't get what she wants in the negotiation, she'll walk without a deal. That doesn't suggest she's frightened. She's going to the polls boldly telling people that the UK could be leaving the EU without access to the single market! That takes balls.

 

[Alan]

With repect the manifesto - the Tories are taking full advantage of their lead in the polls. They know they are going to win so, unlike in past elections, they don't have to promise this, that and the other. So it's a "brave" manifesto, but that's only because bravery can work in this election, it wouldn't have worked in the last two!

Absolutely agree, in fact I think they have used the opportunity NOT to make promises and also tout some less popular policies in exchange for not quite getting the massive landslide they could.

When they called the election, I thought they would be in danger of getting the biggest majority ever in history ( dont ask me, I'm dealing in feelings not facts ), but in reality you don't need to totally annihilate the opposition, a string majority is good enough.

 

[Cobby]

She's just following the precedent set by the Labour Party when Tony Blair refused to debate on television

That's not a precedent, that's history. The world is much more media saturated now, with high levels of internet connectivity and live streaming available for almost every single significant event across the world.
Sneering "but he started it!" as an excuse for a supposedly "strong" leader hiding from the voters: that's pretty weak sauce.

 

[Cobby]

Quite right as millions of stupid people voted to remain as a member of the German Federation

Nobody - not a single person in the entirety of the UK - voted for that or against that. Sorry to disappoint you or upset your weird conspiracy theories.

She's already said that if she doesn't get what she wants in the [Brexit] negotiation, she'll walk without a deal. That doesn't suggest she's frightened.

No, it suggests she's incompetent. Leaving without a deal will, as per usual for the Conservatives, be providing neither strength nor stability. Quite the opposite I suppose, but that won't sway their followers...

 

[DontAsk]

I know that the Tories are a long way ahead in the polls, and were when she called the election (for no apparent reason).

The reasons are very clear:
Jeremy Corbin
Diane Abbott
Union leaders
All the other trots, marxists, communists in the envy fuelled, spiteful, hypocritical mob that would be released, like the army of Mordor, to destroy the country if "Labour" won.

 

[DontAsk]

At the last general election 66% of voters actually voted, only 37% voted tory (11 million).

If the government can be elected by 25% of the electorate

No, that's 25% of those who voted, not of the electorate. In the absence of contrary evidence it's reasonable to assume that part of the electorate who didn't vote would split along the same lines, So 37% of the electorate. Perhaps still not great, but a far bigger proportion than you would like to have us believe.

I was careful to check the meaning of the word "electorate".

 

[Newchodge]

The reasons are very clear:
Jeremy Corbin
Diane Abbott
Union leaders
All the other trots, marxists, communists in the envy fuelled, spiteful, hypocritical mob that would be released, like the army of Mordor, to destroy the country if "Labour" won.

I meant that she called the election for no apparent reason.

 

[DontAsk]

I meant that she called the election for no apparent reason.

I'm not sure that changes my answer

 

[Clinton]

No, it suggests she's incompetent...

We'll soon find out who the nation thinks is the more competent of the two candidates

If we're leaving then I'd rather have May doing the negotiation. Corbyn would give stuff away stuff before he starts the negotiation... like immediately removing all uncertainy for EU nationals living in the UK. That would be a very honourable and charitable gesture as it involves people's lives and children's futures.

But it is a crap negotiating tactic to announce in advance that you'll make a key concession without requiring anything in return! Goodness knows what else he'd give away.

The man is a decent chap, but that's not the top quality you want in a negotiator. You want a savvy operator who knows when to push, when to pull, someone who can be tough when needed, someone who will drive a hard bargain. Unfortunately, as much as I like Corbyn, this isn't him.

...Quite the opposite I suppose, but that won't sway their followers...

These "followers" seem to now include a lot of people who voted Labour all their lives.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

One day I'd hope to see all the left-leaning English parties combine into a single party.

It's unlikely to ever happen, but I think it would make the political landscape more balanced.

With UKIP likely to lose a lot of votes to the Tories, it's only the left which is fractured so heavily. If all the left-leaning votes were combined, the Conservatives would have a much tougher fight.

I also think the left would come out better for it, as they would probably move towards the centre-left where they're more likely to do well. The UK just always has, and always will be, a bit iffy about socialism. Good or bad, it's not really in our culture for some reason (despite a lot of socialist popularity in other parts of Europe).

I long for the days of a strong, united and moderate centre-left party in the UK. I really do. I'm sick of this hard left and hard right battle which swings back and forwards. The world is just far too complicated for one political approach to apply to everything effectively. There needs to be small government in some areas, and larger government in others. There needs to be more intervention in some places, and less in others.

I yearn for balance. One which supports those in need and allows ordinary people to prosper, but at the same time, understands that a favourable business environment is key to improving job creation, wages and the economy as a whole.

The corporation tax pledges really say it all. The Conservatives want to reduce it to 17% by 2020. Labour want to increase it to 26% by 2020. Two extremes yet again where neither option is ideal.

I really hope Macron succeeds with the French presidency. Perhaps it will help other countries to realise that this left/right polarisation causes more harm than good.

 

[MikeJ]

I long for the days of a strong, united and moderate centre-left party in the UK.

Where were you between 1997 and 2007?

 

[Newchodge]

Where were you between 1997 and 2007?

For part of it I was marching against the prospect of war in Iraq. For another part I was devastated as the party of socialist principles penalised those with nothing while giving to those who were not in need. They broke with their electorate, not the other way around.

 

[MikeJ]

Blimey, your feet must have hurt.

They were as close to a "strong, united and moderate centre-left party" as we're ever likely to see in this country.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Where were you between 1997 and 2007?

I still believe that New Labour were in the right place, but they faulted through top-level decisions as opposed to any issue caused by the ideology itself.

- The internal battle between Blair and Brown
- The Iraq war
- Refusing to apply the temporary immigration brake for new EU member populations

I believe it's wise to take left and right approaches depending on what is needed. Blair and Brown just took the wrong approaches. Brown was irresponsible when it came to banking, and Blair was obsessed with warmongering to pander to his "Yo, Blair" buddy George W.

 

[Newchodge]

Blimey, your feet must have hurt.

They were as close to a "strong, united and moderate centre-left party" as we're ever likely to see in this country.

I attended the european social forum in Florence, and one of the marches took place there.

Berlusconi had tried to prevent the forum which was a 4(?) day discussion group, involving about 65,000 socialists from across Europe trying to find a socialist way forward. It was an incredible experience, although it didn't achieve much. Berlusconi suggested that all hotels restaurant and bars should close down to prevent it happening. The Florentines told him where to go. Everywhere I went there were signs saying 'Citta apierta' - Open City. During the anti-war march, which covered about 10km and took more than 8 hours for me to travel that distance - there were probably a million people on the streets chanting 'don't attack Iraq'. It was an incredible experience.

Next day only 1 newspaper in Italy mentioned the march. The rest of the media, controlled by Berlusconi acted as if it never happened.

Bit like the mainstream media in this country now.

Blair's government could have achieved so much. They did achieve a lot, but they deserted their key supporters.

 

[Newchodge]

I was a lot younger then, but it was magnificent. http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/florence.htm

 

[Clinton]

Brown was irresponsible when it came to banking,

I don't believe that's fair. He gave independence to the bank of England on day one. Who remembers the days before that when interest rates were so politicised that election timing determined whether the BoE raised or lowered interest rates!?

His response to the credit crunch was statesmanlike, intelligent, responsible. In fact, he and Darling led the way on the global response to the CC - the bank rescue they devised in the UK was laughed at in places like the US but eventually everybody copied that model. Brown later said in Parliament that he saved the world. He took a lot of flak for that comment - and it was arrogant to make that kind of claim - but he rightly deserves a lot of credit for, for example, the £1 trillion global rescue package he negotiated at the G20 in 2009.

But there are several things he did wrong too. I have a long list but I've got work to do.

 

[billmccallum1957]

No, that's 25% of those who voted, not of the electorate. In the absence of contrary evidence it's reasonable to assume that part of the electorate who didn't vote would split along the same lines, So 37% of the electorate. Perhaps still not great, but a far bigger proportion than you would like to have us believe.

I was careful to check the meaning of the word "electorate".

Hate to disagree with you, but current statistics for the 2015 general election is that there was an electorate (number eligible to vote) of 44 million, and I'm quite sure that 11 million is 25%.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I don't believe that's fair. He gave independence to the bank of England on day one. And his response to the credit crunch was statesmanlike, intelligent, responsible. In fact, he and Darling led the way on the global response to the CC - the bank rescue they devised in the UK was laughed at in places like the US but eventually everybody copied that model. Brown later said in Parliament that he saved the world. He took a lot of flak for that - and it was arrogant to make that kind of claim - but he rightly deserves a lot of credit for, for example, the £1 trillion global rescue package he negotiated at the G20 in 2009.

But there are several things he did wrong too. I have a long list but I've got work to do.

He handled the financial crisis fairly well. The problem I have is the part he played in that financial crisis happening in the first place.

It wasn't just him, of course, but he openly admitted that he made a "big mistake" in financial regulation prior to the crisis: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13032013

He did give independence to the Bank of England, but unfortunately he didn't give that same level of independence to the Financial Services Authority. Many of the heads were from the financial industry, and as I'm sure you know, there were a number of failings.

He certainly wasn't alone in this as I've mentioned already. But he contributed to the issue on a global scale, and his policies ultimately left the British banking system in a weaker position when the credit crunch hit.

 

[Talay]

Brown can never be forgiven for the tax raid on pensions and neither can anyone who was involved in that.

In one swoop, the safety nets of all future generations were swept away.

Of course, those of us who could see beyond the £5bn initial grab, could see a huge problem, though even we did not forecast the end of final salary schemes just then.

We too are guilty of semi glossing over it as we had more pressing things to do but those whose job it was to advise were sadly lacking.

 

[Clodbuster]

I'm easy - I know I'll NEVER vote labour. Policies don't come into it. In preference I'll vote Raving Loony.

 

[Clinton]

I long for the days of a strong, united and moderate centre-left party in the UK. I really do. I'm sick of this hard left and hard right battle which swings back and forwards.

Hard right?! What on earth are you on about?

Cameron and May are about as far to the right of centre as Blair was to the left. Both the main UK parties have steadily drifted to the centre over the decades. They got to the point where there was little difference between them. They were just two different shades of bleh.

Till Corbyn.

And because he's so hard left the Tories are finding they can stray towards the right without it costing them a lot of votes.

 

[Newchodge]

The problem with the terms left, right and centre is that they are not static. The centre is now a lot further right than it was, meaning that labour party policies which, in the 70's would have been seen as completely mainstream are now being called hard left.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Hard right?! What on earth are you on about?

Cameron and May are about as far to the right of centre as Blair was to the left. Both the main UK parties have steadily drifted to the centre over the decades. They got to the point where there was little difference between them. They were just two different shades of bleh.

Till Corbyn.

And because he's so hard left the Tories are finding they can stray towards the right without it costing them a lot of votes.

Firstly, I think the Lib Dem coalition had a lot to do with keeping Cameron in check. We must remember that, for 5 of Cameron's 6 years in power, he had Nick Clegg by his side.

And when Cameron finally did secure a Conservative-only majority, he went straight into the EU negotiations and subsequent referendum campaign. We barely had a chance to see what Dave would have done on his own with a Conservative majority.

Anyway, in my view, Corbyn is as far to the left as May is to the right. I agree with this:

The problem with the terms left, right and centre is that they are not static. The centre is now a lot further right than it was, meaning that labour party policies which, in the 70's would have been seen as completely mainstream are now being called hard left.

Many of Corbyn's policies are common across Europe. Switzerland, Norway, France and Germany all have publicly-owned services we do not. Germany even has public banks (intentionally - not just public ownership for bailout reasons which our Government is keen to sell back into private hands).

Us Brits seem to have our own version of the political spectrum where, as Cyndy pointed out, the centre is much further right than it traditionally is.

Now May, on the other hand, is certainly moving more to the right from what I can see. She's a big advocate of selective education (Cameron was not), and she's moving forward with further privatisation, stronger immigration restrictions, more traditionalist policies, and even elements of nationalist protectionism that UKIP would be pleased with.

That being said, actions speak louder than words. With Brexit and the GE looming large, it's still hard to tell what's genuine belief and political rhetoric as far as May goes.

UKIP even seem to think that May wants to increase her Conservative majority so she can drop reliance on further-right backbenchers and soften her stance on various issues. Time will tell if they are correct.

 

[Clodbuster]

Heavens - you think May is far right? I think you need to develop some perspective. Go and live under a far right regime and perhaps you'll change your tune.

 

[quikshop]

The problem with the terms left, right and centre is that they are not static. The centre is now a lot further right than it was, meaning that labour party policies which, in the 70's would have been seen as completely mainstream are now being called hard left.

Agreed, but the biggest hook-wink of modern times is Cameron, May et al convincing most that they're a centre ground party. They talk centrist but their policies are still very much right of centre and elitist.

I can understand swathes of the population falling for it, after all they have sway over the media, but can someone explain to me how the idiots in Labour and Lib Dems have bought it hook, line and sinker

Labour are now comedy socialists and the Lib Dems are a student protest movement still doing everything their parents told them not to, both shuffling further to the left and utterly deceived.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

She has refused to debate direct with Corbyn on television, giving the appearance that she is frightened of him.

It's interesting to note that Corbyn didn't attend the the TV debate yesterday either...

It takes the shine off his position when it turns into the situation of "I won't go unless she goes as well".

A missed opportunity, I feel. Corbyn will be seen as the person egging May on, but ultimately, both will be seen as the politicians not bothering to attend.

Some are saying it was a tactical move, as with Labour being the major opposition, Corbyn would be ganged up on by everyone else. Perhaps this is the case, but didn't May refuse to attend for the exact same reason?

Both have put political strategy before what's best for the electorate.

 

[Paul Norman]

I agree. Corbyn made an error not going to the debate. It sounds as though he and May have agreed not to. That is probably not the case, but he has given away an advantage.

Back to the opening question. May would have to work very hard indeed not to win this, and she knows that. So I am sure she does want to win it, and win it big. Her reasons for that are not for me to speculate, but by reputation she is something of a control freak.

And also, a decent strategist. Unless she accidentally does something monumentally stupid, she knows she now has 5 years of relatively uncontested mandate under our rules. And history says 10 years. And the state of the opposition suggests a generation.

So yes. She wants this. Big.