Kicking a man when he's down.

[RayThom]

Obviously May was all gooned up on Trumpanyl. She's going to have hell to pay once she's into withdrawal.

[Scooter]

Would the IRA have come to the table without internment? We'll never know.

Internment was abolished in 1975 and, as Guin already pointed out, it served only to strengthen the resolve and avaiiable manpower of republican paramilitary factions, and greatly escalate the violence. The maximum detention without trial under the Prevention of Terrorism Act remained 7 days until 2001; it does not appear that any of the British governments down to the Good Friday Agreement saw increasing that maximum as a means to convince the paramilitaries to give up violence.

The Provisional IRA and some of its splinters supported the peace plan because it gave them what they were created to achieve: British forces would leave, devolution would remove British control from Northern Ireland's internal affairs, and reunification, or not, will be a question to be decided by the Irish alone.

You don't mention the unionist terrorist organizations, they eventually came around as well, in spite of the ravings of Ian Paisley

However, with the IRA there was a structured and defined leadership, with ISIS there isn't, so sitting down and chatting with them over tea and cakes at Downing Street isn't really going to be an option.

Yes and no in either case. In addition to the Provos, there was the Real IRA, the Original IRA, the Continuity IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and a few others who had their own agendas. On the unionist side there was the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, the Red Hand Commandos, etc. Plus there were individuals in all them that went rogue.

None of them were invited for tea. I didn't mean that the UK literally sat down and negotiated with terrorists. But their political proxies who were at the table understood that any peace agreement had to convince all sides that peace would benefit their cause more than continued violence.

[rubato]

Is there anyone who wants to be PM enough to take on the risk that Brexit negotiations will be a total fuster-cluck? I haven't heard from anyone in her party who is calling for her ouster, yet.

I'm wondering if they aren't in wait and see mode, hoping that any difficulty which arises in Brexit will be attached to her.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Is there anyone who wants to be PM enough to take on the risk that Brexit negotiations will be a total fuster-cluck? I haven't heard from anyone in her party who is calling for her ouster, yet.

I'm wondering if they aren't in wait and see mode, hoping that any difficulty which arises in Brexit will be attached to her.


yrs,
rubato

Of course not. There are no "strong" leaders left.
Better to sit back and bitch and moan rather than be part of any solution or even be part of any attempt at a solution. Could cost them their jobs.
Wouldn't want that.

[Scooter]

I don't imagine someone ever wanting the job, if the knives are supposedly out after one election result that didn't meet expectations. There's little incentive to be a "strong leader" if your party turns its back on you after one misstep.

Early elections are always a gamble even in conditions as favorable to the Tories as this one began. They ran a terrible campaign, but it takes more than the leader to craft and deliver a campaign, unless May decided to emulate Stephen Harper's leadership style. None of us has to look far to think of a party that lost an election it should have won.

That being said, if I were a Conservative MP I would almost certainly avoid becoming too closely identified with the Brexit negotiations. If I thought they were being mishandled to the detriment of the national interest, I would certainly share my concerns and advice within the caucus. But May became leader and PM on the strength of her commitment to see Brexit through and get "the best possible deal". It was a level of assurance that people wanted to hear, but it was ill advised in such uncharted territory. If it's all hearts and flowers and all of the parties are looking out for each other's best interest, it will be seen as a personal win for her. If it all goes south, she should take the fall she set up for herself.

[Scooter]

Something's puzzling me about the vote collapse of the SNP and UKIP. In Scotland, SNP is down 13 points, Cons are up 14 and Labour is up 3 (other smaller parties are down 4). I understand that the political orientation of the SNP is somewhat of a mixed bag, but it seems odd to me that the Cons would attract almost all of the SNP switchers.

Likewise, with the UKIP, just looking at England because that's where the oddness is, the UKIP was down 12 points, but the Cons were up 5 and Labour were up 10. Assuming that the 3 points lost by the Greens and LDs went to Labour, it seems odd that former UKIP voters would choose Labour almost 2:1. And it's not because 3.5 million people who voted UKIP in 2015 stayed home this time; turnout is up by 1.4 million.

The Cons almost certainly got almost all of the UKIP's 12 points. So there was a 7 point shift from the Cons to Labour that is masked in the overall results.

In 2015, the 10 point gain by UKIP at the Cons' expense was mitigated by votes picked up from the collapse of the LDs. This time the Cons were saved by the prodigal fascistschildren coming home from the UKIP.

[Crackpot]

What about a collective shift? People in group A go to B. people in B go to C. People in C go to D. Etc.

[rubato]

The reason a large percentage of people go into politics is a love of power.* When they are given an opportunity to get more power, by becoming PM, and don't act, it is noteworthy. There are always a group of people who think they are destined to be a future party leader and who are waiting their chance to move up; May appears to be weak even in her own party so it will be interesting to see who steps up, if any.


yrs,
rubato


*This is not necessarily a bad thing. One of the major drivers for the career of Jerry Brown is the desire to run things and fix problems, a desire for power. In him it is tempered by unusual intelligence and relatively little greed or need for acclaim.

[Scooter]

What about a collective shift? People in group A go to B. people in B go to C. People in C go to D. Etc.

You've got a point, by focusing only on the change I could be missing shifts toward and away from the LDs in both England and Scotland.

[Scooter]

The reason a large percentage of people go into politics is a love of power.* When they are given an opportunity to get more power, by becoming PM, and don't act, it is noteworthy.

But that is precisely what I am questioning, do any Conservative MPs with such aspirations believe there to be an opportunity in the recriminations levelled with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight? Did anyone else see that the campaign was going off the rails, and if so, did they express it when it might have done some good?

[Bicycle Bill]

If for some reason this doesn't get worked out, (and obviously both parties have very strong incentive to reach an agreement) the most likely result would be another election, not a Corbyn-led Labour government...

What do you mean, another election?  You mean the Brits can call for and hold an election whenever the hell they feel like it?

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

If the most successful party (Tory) is unable to form a government and the next largest (Labour) fails to do so (assuming Brenda says, "Give it a go") then, yes - there will be another election.

Can't have no government, old boy. Very bad form.

[dales]

Can't have no government, old boy. Very bad form.

There might be some USians who might argue the point.

[Lord Jim]

Beat me too it Dale...

"No government" might very well be an improvement over our current situation...

[ex-khobar Andy]

If for some reason this doesn't get worked out, (and obviously both parties have very strong incentive to reach an agreement) the most likely result would be another election, not a Corbyn-led Labour government...

What do you mean, another election?  You mean the Brits can call for and hold an election whenever the hell they feel like it?

-"BB"-

From 1911 to 2011 there was a five year maximum on any parliament. A general election must be called prior to the expiry date if the government fails to carry a no confidence vote, or if the PM feels like it. So we had the situation whereby the ruling party would keep an eye on the opinion polls, and if they felt they were in their favo(u)r they could call a GE and hope thereby to start the clock on another five years, rather than going all the way to the end of the current term when they might not be so popular. All this changed in 2011, when the term was set (as before) to five years, but the PM could call an earlier election only if there was a 2/3 majority in Parliament. And the no confidence thing is still in place. That's what May did, and I have to admit that I was a little surprised that she got an easy 2/3 majority, because at that point the pervasive opinion, including mine, was that she would easily increase her majority, so why would Labour go along with it? Just looked it up - it was 522 to 13 for the June election.

[rubato]

They may have used Gretzky statistics; "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" or in their terms "any election is an opportunity to improve your situation". They knew that whatever the polls said at that moment that polls can be changed. Or perhaps they were just counting on May being a poor campaigner. ??


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Something's puzzling me about the vote collapse of the SNP and UKIP. In Scotland, SNP is down 13 points, Cons are up 14 and Labour is up 3 (other smaller parties are down 4). I understand that the political orientation of the SNP is somewhat of a mixed bag, but it seems odd to me that the Cons would attract almost all of the SNP switchers.

Likewise, with the UKIP, just looking at England because that's where the oddness is, the UKIP was down 12 points, but the Cons were up 5 and Labour were up 10. Assuming that the 3 points lost by the Greens and LDs went to Labour, it seems odd that former UKIP voters would choose Labour almost 2:1. And it's not because 3.5 million people who voted UKIP in 2015 stayed home this time; turnout is up by 1.4 million.

The Cons almost certainly got almost all of the UKIP's 12 points. So there was a 7 point shift from the Cons to Labour that is masked in the overall results.

In 2015, the 10 point gain by UKIP at the Cons' expense was mitigated by votes picked up from the collapse of the LDs. This time the Cons were saved by the prodigal fascistschildren coming home from the UKIP.

Some salient points;

A large number of Labour voters support Brexit, and may have changed back from UKIP to Labour, as Labour were now offering a (soft) Brexit.

"Wee Jimmy Krankie," (Nicola Sturgeon,) has put the back up of many Scottish voters, but pushing for Indy Ref 2 above important national politics. (The SNP were once known as the "Tartan Tories.")

The Lib Dems party were the only main party running on a "no Brexit" ticket, and were hammered due to that, plus teh fact taht their leader had to make several flip flop like announcements on his Christianity, and views on gay rights, in the lead up.

[Scooter]

Thanks, that explains a lot.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Beat me too it Dale...

"No government" might very well be an improvement over our current situation...

Maybe not totally "no" government, but reduce the feds and give more power back to the states.

[Lord Jim]

To be honest oldr, I had more in mind our elected federal officials, starting with the guy at the top...

I think an arguable case could be made that the country would be better off if the office of President were simply declared "vacant" for the next 3 years and seven months then having the current occupant...