The Student Room Group

Andrea Leadsom quits Prime Minister race

Scroll to see replies

Theresa May will be the 13th Prime Minister to serve HMQ Elizabeth II...

Hmm...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 101
Original post by george_c00per
I'm glad, however it wasn't unexpected. Every prominent Leave campaigner has seemed to dissapear from politics over the last few weeks, probs bc they know that the UK were naive enough to listen to them lol


More likely the death threats.
Original post by 41b
More likely the death threats.


I'd suggest that being able to deal with those would be part of the job description for a PM.
I'm moving to Canada
Original post by Fullofsurprises
:yep:

The sad reality now is that May will walk a general election in September or next spring and there will be a solid Tory majority. I wonder if Corbyn will go even then? Presumably only the London Labour MPs will be left, so perhaps not. :rolleyes:


Earnest question: what scope does May have if she wants to call a very early election? Does she have the power to do this?
Original post by KimKallstrom
Earnest question: what scope does May have if she wants to call a very early election? Does she have the power to do this?


Yes, there are a few constraints such as House of Commons timetables, but generally she can call one whenever she wants to, assuming that she has her cabinet with her on it.

EDIT I should add that she would need one of the following to get round the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which set parliaments to last 5 years.

a motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed

a motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)

(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Fullofsurprises

The truth as you say is that none of us elected Theresa May and she should stand in a general election. The convenience of the Tory Party is not our national concern, nor should it determine when elections are held.


Do you not think it is more for the labour party for there not to be a general election? They will get destroyed :'(

From a pro democracy point of view we should have an election. From a cynical I don't want labour to die point of view I don't want an election.
Original post by 41b
More likely the death threats.


Where as a remain pro refugee MP was killed. You don't see them pussying out.
Original post by Davij038
This sort of think makes me even more impressed with Blair, Mandelson et Al in managing to give labour tory discipline. Regardless of whether you liked their policies they were an organised, efficient opposition party able to make and implement change for the better.


Precisely. First they killed them in the 1997 GE and then they kept the Conservatives out for 13 years and were therefore able to bring in things like the minimum wage (obviously not everybody supports the minimum wage but if you're a Labourite you probably do). They also brought a lot of people out of poverty. This current shambles of a party can't even dream of that. It's why it makes me shake my head when Momentum types and the extremist Corbyn supporters et al continuously **** off anybody within the party hoping to emulate this. What changes can this lot make? Absolutely none, while the Conservatives can (in their view, not necessarily the public's) run roughshod over the country as they've free reign to implement whatever they want to with impunity. They're screwing over everybody with their pigheaded dogmatism and complete disregard for pragmatism and reality.

Say what you want about Blair and Mandelson but do you want to get elected or are you going to allow the opposition to stay in for another generation?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Do you not think it is more for the labour party for there not to be a general election? They will get destroyed :'(

From a pro democracy point of view we should have an election. From a cynical I don't want labour to die point of view I don't want an election.


Labour, UKIP, the Greens and LibDems have all called for an early general election.

In schoolboy cricket if one team is a man down, the opposition lend a player. Perhaps Cameron could lead the Greens, IDS lead UKIP and Boris lead the Labour Party.
Lol. Unity,solidarity and harmony are the first step? Way to go! British politicians are smarter than I ever thought. Now I'm worried about some leaders in US. I'm hoping they can sleep just like a baby. Is racism such a nightmare,president Obama? :-)

1468260077146.jpg

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Or if we had PR then they would have about 50MPs now.

Where the heck are the Greens in all this? They have 1MP and get far fewer votes. If UKIP are inconsequential your wonderful Green Party is dead and totally not relevant to anything.

We have also left the EU. Which is what UKIP want.


UKIP got around 4 times as many votes as the Green Party in the last GE. They only got one seat (so the same amount as the Greens) but such was their appeal that it strong-armed Cameron and the Tories into promising this referendum. I'm sure if you told them they'd get just one seat but we'd have the referendum, they'd have absolutely taken that without a second thought.

I'd also point out that the Greens' appeal is mainly restricted to a sub section of the middle class. You know the type I'm talking about. The Lanes etc in Brighton is their biggest hot spot. I'm not sure if you know Brighton that well being from where you are but my South East homies will know precisely what that indicates and it ain't the working class in Whitehawk.............

A left-wing party with no appeal to and no care for the real issues of the less well-off will be nothing but a non-entity I'm afraid. At least UKIP address them, which I suppose is how a right-wing party usurps the role of the left-wing parties in sweeping up swathes of their voter base, but there you go.
Original post by KimKallstrom


Say what you want about Blair and Mandelson but do you want to get elected or are you going to allow the opposition to stay in for another generation?


If the labour party has to kill poor people to get elected should the labour party kill poor people?

There is also the aspect of actually changing people's minds as well as trying to pander to what people already think and say they want.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
If the labour party has to kill poor people to get elected should the labour party kill poor people?

There is also the aspect of actually changing people's minds as well as trying to pander to what people already think and say they want.


Regarding the first sentence....come on now. You and I both that's facetious beyond belief. They never compromised their (albeit slightly misguided) commitment to poor people in this country. They used their power to lift a lot of people out of poverty. But if you're talking as a hypothetical as opposed to commenting on what actually happened, then I would say that in no matter what situation, in the views of the party, them being in power is always preferable to the opposition as far as the welfare of the people of the country goes. That applies to all parties, as much as partisans don't want to believe it.

Besides, even if we accept this ludicrous "Tory Lite" charge, which do you prefer if you're a Labourite? Especially if you consider the Conservatives to hold resentment against the poor?

As for the second point, if you think the sections of the Labour Party of the Corbyn variety have a prayer of appealing to anybody other than strong Labourites and Green supporters then you'll have to live for a million years before you ever see it come true. There's the aim of promoting your vision to the country and then there's delusion to the point of it being incredibly damaging to those you wish to champion. This situation is the latter. The Labour Party has to - among other things - hold the Conservatives to account. It's part of their duty. Pushing an agenda which these same people mostly see as utterly insane and not anywhere near their wishes or needs is not doing this at all.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by KimKallstrom
but such was their appeal that it strong-armed Cameron and the Tories into promising this referendum.


Cameron's problem, like Major's before him was the internal problem with his own backbenchers.

Remember, a month ago there was still talk of trying to topple him if he won.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Yes, there are a few constraints such as House of Commons timetables, but generally she can call one whenever she wants to, assuming that she has her cabinet with her on it.

EDIT I should add that she would need one of the following to get round the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which set parliaments to last 5 years.

a motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed

a motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)



Thanks, repped.
Original post by jneill
Theresa May will be the 13th Prime Minister to serve HMQ Elizabeth II...

Hmm...

Posted from TSR Mobile


And Prime Minister #76 of the Third Age.

The first one is recorded in the Old Red Book of Westmarch, something like Fredegar, Frodo, something like that.
Original post by nulli tertius
Labour, UKIP, the Greens and LibDems have all called for an early general election.

In schoolboy cricket if one team is a man down, the opposition lend a player. Perhaps Cameron could lead the Greens, IDS lead UKIP and Boris lead the Labour Party.


For Boris, this kind of radical switching around would prevent few difficulties. :lol:

Cameron was singing a little song to himself as he entered No 10 earlier, according to reports. That man is happy to be leaving. A cynic might wonder if perhaps that was the plan all along. :rolleyes:
Original post by Trapz99
She isn't a coward. She is just a realist who has realised that the job is not suited for her and that she does not have enough support from Conservative MPs to run the party. Even though I supported her in her race to become Prime Minister, she has made the mature and commendable decision to put the interests of her party and stability of the economy above her personal goals, something that a certain someone in the Labour Party isn't doing.


She is a coward. Regardless of what she said, regardless of who agrees and who doesn't, she should have stuck to her guns and saw it through to the end. She should have stuck to what she said and saw it through regardless. Instead she decided to fold when the going got tough, because these days people like to quit when the going gets tough. They like to just take their ball and go home. Boohoo.
If she was just going to quit when it got tough, she should have never ran in the first place.
Original post by thunder_chunky
She is a coward. Regardless of what she said, regardless of who agrees and who doesn't, she should have stuck to her guns and saw it through to the end. She should have stuck to what she said and saw it through regardless. Instead she decided to fold when the going got tough, because these days people like to quit when the going gets tough. They like to just take their ball and go home. Boohoo.
If she was just going to quit when it got tough, she should have never ran in the first place.


I think the attacks on her by the media and her own party show how nasty the party still is. I can see why she stepped down as in the long-term, it was going to ruin her entire reputation
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest