Metropol

It's disheartening to see just how screwed up our media is now.

Papers which have been vilifying Corbyn for his pacifism are now saying it'll be his fault if the bombing happens because he's given a free vote.

Little mention of the fact that Cameron is pushing this plan or that the PM cannot command a majority with his party to make it happen.

Papers want a war. It'll help them sell their papers.

If Oldham went badly, that would have been Jeremy Corbyn's fault presumably?

Yet - Mr McMahon did brilliantly, and that is supposedly nothing do with him.

Perhaps the papers should just accept that their obvious dislike for Corbyn is not in step with the opinion of the people who would ever bring him to power?

So, Theresa May, then.

thegeek wrote:So, Theresa May, then.

And in by Wednesday evening!

And so it came to pass.....

24th May in the BIG Metropoll thread :

Square Eyes wrote:I think it's time up for Cameron whichever way the vote goes. His position becomes untenable if its leave, and there is no way he can unite the Tories if its remain. The spectacle of a Tory leadership to look forward to. It won't be Boris or George. I expect it will be Theresa May.

The inevitable calls for an early election are likely to haunt Theresa May, particularly after she was openly critical of how Gordon Brown became prime minister, and is now going to repeat exactly the same process herself - even down to the timetable of the incumbent PM delivering one last PMQs and going after that - I wouldn't even rule out Cameron repeating Blair's 'and I shall have no such further meetings today or any day' joke from 2007.

My view has always been that, regardless of the fact that we don't directly elect the prime minister, it has to be acknowledged that the decision to vote for a constituency MP will depend at least partly on what the party wants to do nationally, and that is shaped by the leader and it is that leader that was invited to form a government. Thus you shouldn't be able to do something as fundamental as change the leader of the party in power, and thus change the prime minister, and carry on under that mandate when it is no longer being led by the person invited to form it and may well result in the party (and therefore the MPs) going off in a different direction to that which those who voted for them want.

Thus, prime ministers should only take office following a general election mandate which they personally led, and any mid-term departure of a PM should be met with a general election.

All of that said, I don't really want a general election straight away in light of what has happened. The people and the politicians have just finished a campaign and are tired of campaigning. Labour's meltdown has left no credible opposition or alternative party of government, the Tories themselves are likely to be more split than is publicly visible (particularly since they can hide in the shadows of Labour's very public divide). It would be very boring and likely a very poor turnout, just to return the same government we have now and leave us with the same mess to sort out.

Well as I understood it we now have fixed term parliaments so May cannot just call an election. She could put a motion to propose one and it would require a 2/3 majority of the house to vote for it. Despite Labour's public call for an election there can hardly be many privately that would relish the prospect of an election given current party turmoil.

Lib Dems would vote for it (all 8 of them) Tories obviously not, but I wouldn't be so sure about Labour or SNP.

So its a strange one. Theresa May would be doing Labour a favour right now by not proposing to have one, although a snap election may well be in her own political interests.

cwathen wrote:My view has always been that, regardless of the fact that we don't directly elect the prime minister, it has to be acknowledged that the decision to vote for a constituency MP will depend at least partly on what the party wants to do nationally, and that is shaped by the leader and it is that leader that was invited to form a government. Thus you shouldn't be able to do something as fundamental as change the leader of the party in power, and thus change the prime minister, and carry on under that mandate when it is no longer being led by the person invited to form it and may well result in the party (and therefore the MPs) going off in a different direction to that which those who voted for them want.

Assuming you're right, why doesn't the same apply to the Leader of the Opposition? That is an office of state that someone takes by dint of a mandate from the electorate. The decision to vote for a constituency MP will depend at least partly on what the party wants to do nationally, and that is shaped by the leader.

tillyoshea wrote:Assuming you're right, why doesn't the same apply to the Leader of the Opposition? That is an office of state that someone takes by dint of a mandate from the electorate. The decision to vote for a constituency MP will depend at least partly on what the party wants to do nationally, and that is shaped by the leader.

Because he Leader of the Opposition's mandate will be tested at the next General Election (as to whether they become PM or not)?

What did May say about Osborne?