Why did it go so badly for the Conservatives?

First topic message reminder :

So the election is over and what was predicted to be an easy election just 8 weeks ago where the tories had a 20 point lead which would have resulted in a 100 seat majority has in fact turned into a horrible night for the tories where they actually LOST their majority.

So what went wrong? Was it the election debates that May appeared on? Was it May refusing to debate Corbyn 1v1? was it the dementia tax? or the U-turns? What was it that made her lose a 20 point lead in the space of 7 weeks?


Or was it just that Corbyn ran a better campaign?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Labour need to be realistic. Corbyn et al actually refuse to admit they lost the election (literally - Corbyn accepted that they didn't win it, but refused to admit they lost it). The problem with that approach is that it makes them seem too much like career politicians and less like someone you can trust to be honest and truthful.
Given May's equally awful approach to the result (bury head in sand, say nothing), this was a great chance to take the high ground again. But to take the attitude that Labour have more right to form a minority government than the Conservatives, despite less votes and less seats, is precisely the kind of political arrogance and hubris that got May into trouble and is not helpful to their cause.

I think this is something that it is vitally important Labour grasp. They did lose the election. Failure to recognise this and just carrying on down the same path without listening to why people who didn't vote for them this time did what they did, could well be a recipe for disaster at the next election.

JDizzle wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Labour need to be realistic. Corbyn et al actually refuse to admit they lost the election (literally - Corbyn accepted that they didn't win it, but refused to admit they lost it). The problem with that approach is that it makes them seem too much like career politicians and less like someone you can trust to be honest and truthful.
Given May's equally awful approach to the result (bury head in sand, say nothing), this was a great chance to take the high ground again. But to take the attitude that Labour have more right to form a minority government than the Conservatives, despite less votes and less seats, is precisely the kind of political arrogance and hubris that got May into trouble and is not helpful to their cause.

I think this is something that it is vitally important Labour grasp. They did lose the election. Failure to recognise this and just carrying on down the same path without listening to why people who didn't vote for them this time did what they did, could well be a recipe for disaster at the next election.

On a more practical note, I'd like to know how Labour think they could run a minority government (they've already said no coalitions) when they will so dependent on cross-party support.

Its going to be tenuous enough for the Conservatives, assuming they can make the DUP partnership work. The Tories have traditionally been split over Europe and it would only take a minor rebellion (over Brexit, for example) for the wheels to come off.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't find that embarrassing at all, Johnson is a passionate person and that appeals to a lot of people, those envious of his intelligence and achievements don't look past his persona.

There's more to being a significant member of a Government than basic intelligence. He may have some of that, but he's an arse and only ever one step from something embarrassing.

dyrewolfe wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Labour need to be realistic. Corbyn et al actually refuse to admit they lost the election (literally - Corbyn accepted that they didn't win it, but refused to admit they lost it). The problem with that approach is that it makes them seem too much like career politicians and less like someone you can trust to be honest and truthful.
Given May's equally awful approach to the result (bury head in sand, say nothing), this was a great chance to take the high ground again. But to take the attitude that Labour have more right to form a minority government than the Conservatives, despite less votes and less seats, is precisely the kind of political arrogance and hubris that got May into trouble and is not helpful to their cause.

I think this is something that it is vitally important Labour grasp. They did lose the election. Failure to recognise this and just carrying on down the same path without listening to why people who didn't vote for them this time did what they did, could well be a recipe for disaster at the next election.

On a more practical note, I'd like to know how Labour think they could run a minority government (they've already said no coalitions) when they will so dependent on cross-party support.

Its going to be tenuous enough for the Conservatives, assuming they can make the DUP partnership work. The Tories have traditionally been split over Europe and it would only take a minor rebellion (over Brexit, for example) for the wheels to come off.

Personally I feel like it's more about putting more pressure on Theresa May than it is a serious attempt to form a successfully working government. It also can kill any of the talk that Corbyn doesn't want to be Prime Minister, which was a common criticism not too long ago. I think Labour can smell blood and if they can keep the pressure on May hard for the next few months, another General Election will inevitably be called.

Reality is Labour couldn't form a minority government even if they had the chance.

Every Tory MP would vote their queens speech down and the DUP have already ruled out any deal with Labour while Corbyn is leader so can reasonably assume they would also vote against it.

That's before you get to working an agreement with the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens and every independent.

If May would be lucky to last a few months that alliance would be lucky to last a week

but labour don't want a minority government, they want another election which they would most likely win.

Despite both Corbyn and McDonnell saying they're ready to form one?

And "most likely" come on man. They still trailed by 50 seats to one of the worst candidates and campaigns ever ran. Can't remotely say victory is likely.

GSC wrote:Despite both Corbyn and McDonnell saying they're ready to form one?

And "most likely" come on man. They still trailed by 50 seats to one of the worst candidates and campaigns ever ran. Can't remotely say victory is likely.

Or it could be said that Labour ran out of time. Every day of the election campaign the Tories stumbled from one disaster to another. The campaign began with the Tories with expectations of a landslide victory but a debate shy PM lacking the human touch, a manifesto that reeked of something rotten and just rank rotten campaigning saw that hope dwindle and the Tories ending up having to resort to signing a deal with a dubious party to hold on to power. I am not saying if there were another election next month Labour would win it but they'd certainly go in with all the momentum.

GSC wrote:Despite both Corbyn and McDonnell saying they're ready to form one?

And "most likely" come on man. They still trailed by 50 seats to one of the worst candidates and campaigns ever ran. Can't remotely say victory is likely.

It was because of how bad the conservative campaign was and how good the labour campaign was that it was JUST 50 seats. Labour were predicted to go down below 200 seats and the tories predicted to increase their majority to over 100 but instead labour actually gained and the tories lost seats and lost their majority, all in the space of 7 weeks.

Labour don't want to form a government with a minority, they want another election which they will win based on the evidence and win big.

Yeah thats the point.

Even with that disparity, that still ended up 50 seats behind. You can't seriously say victory is most likely.

GSC wrote:Yeah thats the point.

Even with that disparity, that still ended up 50 seats behind. You can't seriously say victory is most likely.

Put it this way though - the Tories have gone from cocky enough to call a snap election expecting a landslide to signing a deal with a dubious party to avoid another election as they fear the consequences. Quite a come down in the space of two months.

Craig I don't think anyone is going to deny it's been a Train wreck for the Tories. But even that train wreck won more seats and votes.than Labour.

Can't seriously say on that basis Corbyn is most likely to be the next pm

GSC wrote:Yeah thats the point.

Even with that disparity, that still ended up 50 seats behind. You can't seriously say victory is most likely.

You were predicting a tory landslide a few weeks ago and now you are trying to claim some kind of victory because both sides lost

This was a disaster for the tories and there is no spin you can put on that to deny it. They lost their majority unnecessarily by calling a general election 3 years early with the sole aim of increasing their majority. They never increased their majority, they reduced it to the point that they don't even have enough mps to form a government.

put as much spin on it as you like but it was a disaster for the tories.

Pray tell how I'm spinning it as a victory for a party I didn't even vote for.

Nobody won the last GE. Least of all Britain.

GSC wrote:Craig I don't think anyone is going to deny it's been a Train wreck for the Tories. But even that train wreck won more seats and votes.than Labour.

Can't seriously say on that basis Corbyn is most likely to be the next pm

Oh I am not saying it is a nailed on certainty but the odds would be far shorter going into an election (in the next year say) than odds were going into this election. In other words its far more likely now than it was two months ago.

Likewise, I don't disagree with any of that.

Most parties would love to have a disaster that sees them pick up more seats than anyone else but it's all about moral victories apparently.

It was a good result from where Labour came from just before the campaign was called, but the fact is Corbyn helped put them in that position. It is a big stretch to say he can crack 325 seats in the next GE.

JDizzle wrote:It was a good result from where Labour came from just before the campaign was called, but the fact is Corbyn helped put them in that position. It is a big stretch to say he can crack 325 seats in the next GE.

But he has taken them from unelectable into a position of wondering if they can do it whereas the colder than a freezer unit May has taken the Tories from landslide aspirations to a party with popularity dropping like a stone and having to resort to signing a deal with the devil to hang onto power and her PR and street cred taking more bashing in the last day or two as well. If you were to give me money to bet on next election I wouldnt be backing Tory that is for sure.

Yes, the Tories won more seats than Labour but they came into the election with far higher expectations. They were aiming for a crushing landslide majority (remember that Daily Mail headline 'Crush the saboteurs!') and expecting to finish off Labour as political force in the process, with a strong mandate to do whatever they liked with minimal opposition.

Now, they are clinging to power by their fingertips relying on the DUP's votes, with a lame duck leader whilst Labour are in a much stronger position than prior to the election with much greater self-confidence, and are now potentially in a position where an overall majority at the next election is within grasp.

Can the Tories ride this out? Possibly, but it depends on the state of the economy and how well Brexit is handled. On the former I don't see the economy going especially well (though we may avoid recession) and on the latter, May is in a weaker position than pre-election and the fragile ceasefire over Europe in the Tory Party may be difficult to maintain for much longer. However they may get a reprieve if Labour resume their in-fighting.

GSC wrote:Despite both Corbyn and McDonnell saying they're ready to form one?

And "most likely" come on man. They still trailed by 50 seats to one of the worst candidates and campaigns ever ran. Can't remotely say victory is likely.

They only need 10 seats...For supply and demand.
They are currently 6 points ahead..
They lost seats by as little as 100 votes..

Your post doesn't hold up to scrutiny....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

GSC wrote:Despite both Corbyn and McDonnell saying they're ready to form one?

And "most likely" come on man. They still trailed by 50 seats to one of the worst candidates and campaigns ever ran. Can't remotely say victory is likely.

They only need 10 seats...For supply and demand.
They are currently 6 points ahead..
They lost seats by as little as 100 votes..

Your post doesn't hold up to scrutiny....

Yep things don't look good for the tories if another election is called, hence why they are desperate for a 'coalition' with the DUP.

What should be worrying for May is that because she has such a small majority (2) she will have a big difficulty passing laws. Only takes a few conservative back bench mps to vote against the law for May to fail. If she can't get laws through that is when she will have a vote of no confidence and be removed from power.

weak times for May.

What is more worrying is that he is a Terrorist...A Marxist...A Tramp....and a Communist with a stupid manifesto and he gets 40 percent anyway..

When May and Khan go to the Tower they get abused...when Corbyn goes they cry on his shoulder.. He is one of them and there is a lot of "them"..

He's got the common touch...You can't buy that..

Underestimate the rest of the hard left but don't underestimate this guy and he is leader...

While he stays nothing is politically certain. They will wait him out..he is 69.

It just shows the stupidity of people that they're blaming May and Khan, neither of whom are to blame but it's easy to heckle and abuse the leaders. It's a poor comparison when Corbyn is merely a party leader.

It is to do with his personality...He comes across as giving a damn..

Yougov...Who is the best leader rating..

Corbyn +6
May -34....

The first time a Labout leader has been in positive figures since 2007 just before Brown bottled out of a GE..

It's to do with the fact that he's not held accountable for anything unlike May or Khan, the latter getting heckled is a disgrace. I disagreed with the way he put the terrorist attacks comment but he's a good straight forward guy who unlike most cares about the ordinary person. To then see him blamed by some highlights that people don't have a clue about what's going on.

No one is arguing Khan isn’t a decent chap....Just that some people give off a more naturally empathetic vibe....The approachability factor.

Probably didn't go unnoticed that he was not a fan of Corbyn either..

It shows the idiocy of people unfortunately and also that you're looking at things from entirely the wrong angle. If you have no accountability for anything then you won't be met with the same misplaced anger.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It shows the idiocy of people unfortunately and also that you're looking at things from entirely the wrong angle. If you have no accountability for anything then you won't be met with the same misplaced anger.

Certainly have a government that is accountable for this never ending thing called austerity that is affecting so many.........Nurses using foodbanks etc..

Perspective is a subjective thing....13 milion don't share your perspective and I wager some of them aren't idiots...

Stupidity does not explain away figures.

May has been in power for around a year and in that time a lame duck Labour party tipped to dip below 200 seats in the election with a leader mauled by his own party and offered no great support has bolstered its seats at Westminster and the Tories seats have dwindled to such an extent they couldn't even win a majority. Now that can only be down to these factors that the Tory manifesto stinks, May has the heart of a stone and the character of a brick who shows no compassion for voters, Corbyn has done mightily better rallying his party than her or the people see Corbyn as the more human, on your shoulder and caring type than May.

Survation....

Labour 44
Con 41...

Double edged poll....Labour were 20 points behind seven weeks ago and would never have dreamed of polling this high....

Other side of the coin May is a stain on the Tory party and they only trail by 3...First election I remember was Kinnock v Major...Replaced the leader and won the election..I imagine the same will apply here..either in the middle or the end of Brexit.

Either way Labour will be happy enough.....Going from relegation to a shot at the title is good progress.

Suits Corbyn to be in permanent campaign mode, doesn't actually have to lead the party at the moment.

Think his comments that cuts were responsible for the disaster were horrible and his suggestion that the state seize privately owned unoccupied properties in Kensington to rehouse people absolutely ludicrous.

Looks like the conservatives are going to try and wait him out, they are planning to skip a Queen's speech, so the next one isn't until 2019 - post leave negotiations. Make a judgement on a new leader then

In 3 years he'll be 70, I reckon that is when we will have our next GE (providing May can form a minority Government now).

Fire union has claimed cuts haven't helped the situation and people are sleeping in leisure centres. If it had been rich people they'd have had sprinklers..

Everything about this disaster is political.



Corbyn has done nothing wrong.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fire union has claimed cuts haven't helped the situation and people are sleeping in leisure centres.   If it had been rich people they'd have had sprinklers..

Everything about this disaster is political.



Corbyn has done nothing wrong.

Haven't helped the situation is completely different to saying that cuts have caused it whilst your point about sprinklers is shall we say nonsensical and for the sake of decorum I can't expand upon it.

Corbyn has done nothing right either, his words are hollow and false.

The fire brigade didn't have the equipment to reach the top floors...

If they had been built for the rich they would have had sprinklers....You can chuck out nonsense all you like...

All about politics....

What equipment would have helped them reach the top floors then Truss?

They would have been fitted with sprinklers but it's not politics though is it, it's about money.

Having a demonstration outside the BBC and downing street underlines the political nature of it all.

See what this inquest comes out with, but more interested in what can be done to prevent similar tragedies, rather the inevitable Tories/Blair/Gordon underfunded. Will be another point for JC though

Where the money comes from will be heavily politicised.

Should come from the tenants, no?

Heaven forbid Corbyn like the rest of us should care about the people...

If a bad situation was started because of a mistake or a bad situation was made worse...Then he has every right to get involved..

The chancellor opined yesterday that he believed the material was banned in the UK..

Wouldn't suggest for a minute Corbyn being Labour has anything to do with your objective opinions on this matter.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Heaven forbid Corbyn like the rest of us should care about the people...

If a bad situation was started because of a mistake or a bad situation was made worse...Then he has every right to get involved..

The chancellor opined yesterday that he believed the material was banned in the UK..

Wouldn't suggest for a minute Corbyn being Labour has anything to do with your objective opinions on this matter.

None of that has anything to do with cuts to the Fire Service and I'm still wondering what equipment they were lacking.

Oh FFS. Of course it's political!

Social housing is a political issue to start with, always has been to some extent. See Cameron to Clegg "I don't know why you talk about social housing, all it does is creates Labour voters".

When poor people, mostly immigrants, die in horrible circumstances, because their building has been "refurbished" to look prettier from the surrounding rich areas, rather than made safer, that is political.

When the refurbishment sees the building surrounded in flammable cladding, because the fire resistant material is a tiny bit more expensive and "we all have to find savings", that is political.

When the government decides to sleep on a report commissioned 8 years ago into a similar disaster, that is political.

When the government refuses to make sprinkler systems mandatory not because they wouldn't help, but because they have an ideological rule of "one new regulation means we have to get rid of two existing ones", that is political.

When residents have been warning the Council for years about the potential for such a disaster, and the Council has been happily ignoring them, safe in the knowledge that they can't do anything about it because legal aid has been slashed and slashed again, that is political.

So please don't accuse those now saying "I told you so" of exploiting the situation. This disaster could and should have been averted, there were so many chances along the way to take stock and put people's lives above profit and ideology, and now at the latest count 79 people are dead. I feel incredibly angry, and deeply ashamed that this can happen in Britain in 2017.

Just goes to show where "cutting red tape" gets you.

Let's be honest here, people. The folks at Greenwell died because they're poor.

An extra £2 a sheet of cladding would have completely fire proofed it. Can we atleast acknowledge that this wasnt bought because of the Tory Austerity culture we're in?

Poor people died because the rich didnt like the way their flats looked. Its as simple as that.

You're clueless and classless.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clueless and classless.

Please explain the reasoning behind your baseless accusation and insult.

I don't debate WUMs.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't debate WUMs.

Thought as much.

Samo wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't debate WUMs.

Thought as much.

You only ever have one argument and you're never able to expand upon it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Samo wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't debate WUMs.

Thought as much.

You only ever have one argument and you're never able to expand upon it.

Sorry mate I dont debate WUMs.