May Wins UK Parliament Vote To Allow June 8th Snap Election

Tyler Durden's picture

As totally expected, Theresa May - following a contentious debate - won the UK parliament vote to allow a June 8th snap election by a count of 522 to 13, well above the two-thirds majority needed.

Opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn welcomed the poll but accused the PM of changing her mind and breaking promises on a range of issues.

The result triggers what will be an intense seven-week campaign in which the U.K.’s relationship with the EU will be the focus.

No reaction in the pound so far...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
HenryHall's picture

Jeremy Corbyn should insist that MPs put themselves up for deselection/reselection.

If they won't then should he fail at the election it won't be his fault and there is no reason he should resign.

If they do then let the people decide whether they want socialism. He should resign if MP candidates who support him are mostly not elected.

eforce's picture

Corbyn supports Agenda 21, an incredibly dangerous politician, I understand why some want to keep him around as he makes Labour unelectable at the moment but with the right crisis he could become PM, he needs to go.

Silver Bug's picture

There is a strong chance that this is a ploy by the globalist to stop a "hard brexit". We shall see, I fully expect May to win although.

 

http://jimrickards.blogspot.com/2017/04/james-rickards-china-disaster-to...

ebworthen's picture

Agree.  Why take the risk?  Just get Brexit done.

Smells fishy, or foolish.

caesium's picture

Washington called. She found who is really change and had been told to rein in the lunatic fringe in her party.

smacker's picture

Whatever, you will know that in the UK there is a long time tradition that when a political party loses an election, the leader resigns.

That's how we got rid of jewish "Red Ed Miliband".  I expect Corbyn to also do that when he loses :-)

HenryHall's picture

>> Whatever, you will know that in the UK there is a long time tradition that when a political party loses an election, the leader resigns.

And that is precisely why Jeremy must make deselection/reselection a central policy platform.

smacker's picture

Your proposal only holds good if you want Corbyn to have a way out of resigning when he loses the election.

Why would you want that? After all, he's one of the unreconstructed Left-wing socialists.

Perish the thought that he could find himself in No.10 by some qwerk of political events ,,,

 

For me, the only goodness he serves as Labour leader is that he guarantees Labour will never win an election :-)

A sort of variation on Michael Foot and even the Welsh Windbag Kinnock.

Sandmann's picture

Who will pay for this ? Are you volunteering to fund it ?

HenryHall's picture

Pay for the reselection process?

Each consituency Labour Party pays for its own reselection. The cost of reselection is trivial.

In contrast, the campaign costs the constituency real money, but that is the same cost whether reselection or not.

NoDebt's picture

Ok.  Cool.

 

Ghordius's picture

you are one of our American Cousins, aren't you? look at them British Cousins, then. you can argue and debate the whole night with or about them, but hey...

... they manage to have a completely new government, legislative assembly and executive cabinet with a full campaign... in seven weeks

and never mind that they do that for a fraction of a fraction of the costs. it sure beats talking two years about candidates for presidency, imho. two years vs seven weeks, folks. really, I just only wish they would stop doing that (imho silly) FPTP

smacker's picture

The major downside of FPTP is that it has (in my lifetime) always produced a government that only achieved around 42% of the vote, meaning that Britain is always governed by a minority government but they have extraordinary powers.

I would therefore support a change to the electoral system which ensured the winner had to achieve at least 51%.

OTOH, if we had a proper written constitution that limited the scope of government and was enforced, whoever won an election would be less important.

waspwench's picture

FPTP can, and does, produce some serious anomalies.

At the last election:  the Lib Dems got 2.4 million votes and 8 seats

                             the Scots Nats got 1.5 million votes and 56 seats

                             UKIP got 3.9 million votes and 1 seat

UKIP had exactly as many votes as the Lib Dems and SNP combined but got 1 (ONE!!!!) seat while they got 64 seats between them.

The Lib Dems had a million more votes than the SNP but had 48 fewer seats.

UKIP ought to have had 64 seats - or perhaps SNP ought to have had none.....

smacker's picture

I totally agree with you. UKIP should have gotten a lot more seats.

I'm all for changes being made to the electoral system but what I'm afraid of is that Britain ends up with a sort-of wishy-washy coalition.gov where decisions are taken on the basis of compromise which is a euphamism for the "lowest common denominator". That tends to be how much of Europe is governed and it favours socialist decisions which is why they like it.

 

ScottishCalvin's picture

I would say that the Labour MPs are Turkeys voting for Christmas, except I think that all the stocks of that catchphrase were used up with the other vote this week that was actually in "Turkey"

My cartoon on the upcoming race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GoLcuEhcZo

lester1's picture

So are they leaving the EU or not ??

Tachyonic's picture

Where have you been?!?!  That process is already in motion.

Ghordius's picture

yes. the only caveat would be if the LibDem party wins (and much), and that is... highly unlikely

the real debate is only about what kind of Brexit, "hard", "very hard", "soft", it all depends on how much "EU" stays in the UK

and this before even talking about a trade agreement between the UK and the EU. that comes later, after the "divorce agreements"

the "Brexit" Secretary, David Davis, recently talked about "not accepting" that the european medicines agency would relocate to the EU, for example. the same for the "Financial Authority"

it's roughly 30 shared agencies and regulators we are talking about. and of course things like banking services related to the EUR clearing, and so on

CRM114's picture

"if the LibDem party wins "

 

You should do Stand-up. Are you here all week?  ;)

smacker's picture

And the real reason for May's sudden election decision is because she got word that the CPS will be taking criminal proceedings against up to 30 Tory MPs for charging local election expenses to national campaigns at the last general election when in fact they were spent at local level. This means local campaign spending was higher than permitted.

This was discovered by a guy called Michael Crick who is the investigative journalist ferret for TV Channel 4.

Sandmann's picture

Michael does not so much "ferret out" as have lovely networks from his days at New College, Oxford. The real reason for an election is to bring the House of Lords to heel by including its "reform" in the Manifesto

smacker's picture

Well, there you go. My info came from Nigel Farage last night on his LBC radio show.

But I would not disagree with you about bringing the Lords to heel.

Ghordius's picture

so Nigel Farage was talking about

"proceedings against up to 30 Tory MPs for charging local election expenses to national campaigns at the last general election when in fact they were spent at local level "?

funny that. the EU commission claims he spent EU funds meant for UKIP's EU Parliament campaigns on the Brexit Referendum campaign, giving a similar issue with similar funding laws

of course, how could you expect a party that has one single issue, i.e. getting the UK out of the EU, not to spend EU funds on that all importan referendum instead of a completely irrelevant (from UKIP's perspective) re-election as MEPs? sometimes those "expenses scandals" smack of complete irrelevancy. they really should stop putting strings on those funds. either you fund them or not, period (I prefer to fund them, just for the record)

smacker's picture

Well you know, when the EU gets its accounts audited and signed off it may have a credible gripe. But I don't imagine that will ever happen and certainly not before it implodes and goes into the dustbin of history as an idea that was out of time.

It's time to fill the nostrils with the scent of freedom. Quit the EU :-)

francis scott falseflag's picture

 

           The reason for the so-called 'snap' election is pretty obvious.  

After the French election on May 7, and charges of Russia's

interference in it, the MSM will be able to double down and

accuse Russia with  interfering with the English election only

a month later.

 

If May had not called a 'snap' election, the anti-Russian cabal

would have had to wait 3 years before charging Putin with

interfering in voting in Queenie's government.  

 

May is just striking while the iron is hot.

 

smacker's picture

That's a good theory and given that May is obedient to Washingtown at slagging down Russia, it may have legs.

Like so many .gov decisions/actions, they are invariably taken for multiple reasons.