Theresa May's Top Two Aides Resign

[jim360]

Live on the BBC now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2017-40231623

Interesting to note, further down the feed, that May was "told" by the 1922 Committee to go on TV and apologise to MPs who lost their seats, having said nothing about it at all over the night or when she announced her intention to form a government -- and that there are rumours that if she didn't sack these two aides then she may well have faced a serious challenge to her leadership.

What a wonderful winning feeling she must be having right now.

[Kromovaracun]

And yes I agree it is silly to say that someone has won based purely on the number of votes they receive in our antiquated system.

[naomi24]

Krom, I've no idea what you're claiming, but whatever it is it makes no sense. Mrs May won.

[Kromovaracun]

I think you have a strange definition of victory :P

[Kromovaracun]

(I don't think anybody won)

[jim360]

Grasping at the straw of a direct quote that says that by Theresa May's own standards, she lost?

You have a very weird definition of winning. She came ahead in seats and votes, but lost her majority, failed to achieve her aims, and failed to achieve even a modest target of holding on to 326 seats.

It is a failure, an abject failure, and a horrible miscalculation. A Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one. Her top two advisers have already paid for it. She will pay the price for this "victory" too, and sooner rather than later.

[jim360]

Of course, to strike a bit of balance, Labour moved forward and made huge progress, and showed that the tag of "unelectable" applied to Corbyn is a nonsense. They did not win -- but it's as wonderful and uplifting a defeat as you could hope for.

[naomi24]

Krom, //I think you have a strange definition of victory :P //

You do? Why? Mr Corbyn isn't the Prime Minister because he lost. How difficult is that to understand?

[Kromovaracun]

Normally when someone wins it isn't a matter of controversy...

[naomi24]

Krom, But she beat Jeremy Corbyn.... for heaven's sake get over it. This is the Brexit argument revisited. Cue bottom lips dragging on the floor forever more.

[Cloverjo]

I can imagine TM sobbing and kicking her heels and everything else over this, Naomi. She lost her majority. Yes, she is still PM, but for how much longer?
She made a massive mistake and will regret it. How difficult is that to understand?

[naomi24]

Cloverjo, I have no idea what her reaction, in private, has been, but if you think she has made such a hash of it, I can't help thinking you're pretty naïve to insist on her resignation. Her continuing presence as Prime Minister would surely assist your cause. How difficult is that to understand? Impossible, it seems, because your thought processes stretch no further than immediately putting the proverbial boot in - as is your wont.

Night all.

[Kromovaracun]

Well no, we just try not to put our "tribe"'s interests above those of the country.

Of course, nobody's successful in doing that 100% of the time because by definition one tends to think their crowd is the best option. In this case, though, having a bad (and imo illegitimate) PM is just that... bad. For everyone.

I know the idea of putting common good over party interest must be completely alien for Tory supporters because "party interest" has been perhaps the singular defining feature of Conservative policymaking for the past 7 years. Perhaps if you took off your blue-tinted specs your unclouded 20/20 vision might come back ;)

[mikey4444]

To listen to the usual suspects on this thread, you could be forgiven for thinking that is 1979 all over again !

May won a stupendous defeat and its all her fault.
It certainly isn't the fault of Corbyn and the Labour Party.

She and her Government face a very uncertain future, and if a further Election were to be called in the next few months, she would very likely lose it.

[naomi24]

Krom, //we just try not to put our "tribe"'s interests above those of the country.//

But you have put your tribe’s interests above those of the country because it’s quite clear that Corbyn’s unworkable idealism would spell disaster.

Mikey, You really are one who would vote for a donkey as long as it wore a red rosette.

//She and her Government face a very uncertain future//

As does the whole country now. As I said before, be careful what you wish for.

[naomi24]

Mikey, //To listen to the usual suspects on this thread, you could be forgiven for thinking that is 1979 all over again ! //

Indeed you would - Labour supporters do seem to be behaving as though they now have a Labour government.

[Kromovaracun]

//But you have put your tribe’s interests above those of the country because it’s quite clear that Corbyn’s unworkable idealism would spell disaster.//

1) I didn't vote Labour
2) Obviously, I don't agree.
3) I don't understand what your point is.

[naomi24]

Krom, you didn't vote Labour - but you would be happy to see Corbyn in number 10.

Which bit of my post do you disagree with, and what don't you understand?

[Kromovaracun]

I'm confused by this drain we appear to be circling. I want May to go, because I think she's awful. But you think I shouldn't, because if she's awful, then she's good for Labour; but I'm not interested in putting party first in this instance, so I want her to go.

I don't agree that Corbyn's ideals are bad for the country so obviously from my point of view I'm not putting party above country...

[naomi24]

Krom, if you think Jeremy’s idealistic notions would work, surely having someone as useless as you think she is at the helm would give him more clout and so, ultimately, benefit the country?