Slashdot Mirror


Theresa May Loses Overall Majority In UK Parliament (cnn.com)

Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain has lost her overall majority in Parliament on Thursday, plunging Britain into a period of renewed political chaos less than two weeks before it is scheduled to begin negotiations over withdrawing from the European Union. While May's Conservative party won the most seats, the party didn't win enough to govern without the support of minority parties. CNN reports: It was devastating result for May, who had called the election three years earlier than required by law, convinced by opinion polls that placed her far ahead of opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The result also plunges Britain into a period of renewed political chaos, with Brexit talks likely to be delayed and May's personal authority shredded. There was already talk in Conservative circles that she might have to resign, less than a year after taking over from David Cameron, who resigned following the Brexit referendum. The pound fell on currency markets in the wake of the results. After the result was declared in her constituency of Maidenhead, May gave a faltering speech. "At this time more than anything else, this country needs a period of stability," she said, suggesting she would attempt to form a government even if her party loses its majority. Corbyn said the early results showed May had lost her mandate and called for her to resign. Further reading: New York Times

33 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Bye Theresa by bestweasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Weak and wobbly.

    1. Re:Bye Theresa by locofungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I still don't get why people are still in a huff with the lib dems though.

      Because they betrayed their core support. They promised an end to tuition fees and then ditched it to get 15 minutes of fame.

      They'd have done the same on their demand for a second Europe referendum if they'd held 30 or so now labour seats (and claim that they at least could influence the brexit negotiations)

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    2. Re:Bye Theresa by coastwalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually most Lib Dems voted Labour for this election because it was more important to stop the right wing conservatives "hard brexit" and austerity. Also the current Lib Dem leader is not very appealing as a person being a bit of a religious fanatic in a party that does not believe religion should be in politics. The tuition fees thing is something they had no choice about as the cost of what they were able to achieve as part of the last coalition.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    3. Re: Bye Theresa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you lurk 4chan, you'll find that support for May ended the second she started talking about internet censorship and regulation. May instantly went from being the alt-right's "Mummy" to being a rejected politician whom even the cesspit of the internet could not love. May fucked up big-time when she tried to capitalize on terror. The right wing of the native youth does not want its own freedom threatened: it wants security through ending immigration.

    4. Re:Bye Theresa by vittal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The irony of course is that the DUP (who the Tories will tempt into bed with them) have a long history of religious lunacy that makes Tim Farron (Lib Dem leader) look like Richard Dawkins in comparison.

      They have recent history of appointing young earth creationists, being vehemently anti-gay and climate change deniers (why worry when God'll sort it out).

      Ho-hum :(

    5. Re:Bye Theresa by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their stance on Brexit utterly fails to respect the British people

      ANY stance on Brexit fails to respect 50+/-2% of the British people.

      That's not remotely true. At the extremes you've got hard Brexit and increased integration with Europe. There's a vast swathe of middle ground, including a soft Brexit and the position taken by most Remain campaigners (remaining in, but fighting tightening integration and securing opt-outs). Taking the tiniest of majorities for one side and claiming it's a mandate for the most extreme version of that side is failing to respect half of the British people. Seeking a compromise position closer to the middle ground isn't.

      The idea that Fallon promising *the British people* a vote on the final Brexit terms is somehow ignoring their will is a transparent lie. If the Leave camp actually believed their own lies they'd be happy to see a second referendum. Because I'm constantly told that the majority of British people knew they were voting for a hard Brexit (not true), wanted one (not true) and didn't vote based on outright lies told by the Leave campaign (also not true). If that were all true, then a second referendum would simply confirm the results of the first, and slide through swimmingly. We could even fund it with three days worth of the contributions we make to the EU (another not true).

      That's why there should have been a supermajority of two thirds on that referendum. Brexit was and is a monumental decision and you need to require there to be a clear mandate for whoever gets stiffed with implementing such a decision. Otherwise that person cannot be expected do their job effectively. What AC describes, however, is the kind of lukewarm one foot through the door, I want full access to the club facilities but making me pay a membership fee is an assault on my human rights, attitude that brought us Farage, Wilders, Le Pen in the first place. Ironically the clusterfuck that Brexit and British politics has become is actually helping the EU along whit the fact that Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and their ilk held Donald Trump up as an example to follow and now that he has turned out to be a human shitsandwich European voters, who seem to generally be a bit quicker spot a turd than some American voters seem to be, are not having any of it. People in the rest of the EU27 take one look at the UK and think 'Wat? Do I want a slice of shit cake? Ummm... no thanks'. From now on people are just going to have to make up their minds whether they want to *exit or stay in the EU and fight for reforms. There are no other choices.

  2. What happened next? by StickyKeys · · Score: 5, Informative

    SNP and Lib Dems have already said they're not going to form a coalition government which means the only option left is for Conservative to form a minority government which would effectively means the government loses its authority to pass laws without support from other parties which would be a disaster when managing Brexit given how divided the nation is on the topic.

    1. Re:What happened next? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      effectively means the government loses its authority to pass laws without support from other parties which

      Yep which means they can't just plough ahead with their regularly scheduled strategy of hating everyone. I mean christ, cross party support! That's just awful, they'll have to consider what people in non Tory seats want. In other words they are going to have to learn to run the country for the voters not the tory party.

      which would be a disaster when managing Brexit given how divided the nation is on the topic.

      Whereas having one party simply riide roughshod over about half the population is a fine idea.

      The Tories have proven they are not grown up enough to run the country. First by holding the referendum in the first place, then the farcical leadership contest and finally the election. No way in hell I want them to have yet another crack at fucking things up.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:What happened next? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice little theory, but a far far simpler one is that May got greedy when the opinion polls made it look like she could vastly increase her majority by calling an election early. Boring slimy politics as usual.

    3. Re:What happened next? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not so sure about this. What I can see here is that people were promised wonders over wonders if Brexit happens, that their health insurance gets better, that jobs come back, that foreigners leave, basically that unicorns come and shit rainbows all across the sky.

      Guess what. Didn't happen. People are pissed.

      Because people neither want Brexit nor staying. They don't give a fuck either way. They want whatever gives them more handouts, and they now want to get what they were promised. And of course that's not going to happen.

      May, in her infinite wisdom, jumped full-bore onto the Brexit train once it was running and did what we have seen as the success story of German chancellor Merkel: She has no idea where things are going to go, so she waits for the masses to move, and as soon as they move in a direction, she runs past them and yells "follow me!".

      That works if the masses still want what they thought they wanted when you yell "follow me!". Unfortunately for May (and fortunately for the rest of the world), by the time May yelled "follow me!" people already noticed that they were given empty promises and are now pissed. Especially at a PM that claims she doesn't want a Brexit while they want it, and now that they are no longer so fond of the idea tries hard to push it with all her might.

      She tried to copy Merkel. She failed miserably.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:What happened next? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the plan was that the Brexit vote fails. Like the US had no plan for when Trump becomes president, they had no plan for a Brexit vote success.

      You don't plan for the impossible, do you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:What happened next? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the crap you get when you hold referendums where one side feels at liberty to simply lie to win.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Should couldn't even ... by Malc · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... be bothered to participate in the multi-party televised election debates. In the debate the Tories did turn up, she sent the Home Secretary, whose father had died days beforehand.

    Weak leadership.

    1. Re:Should couldn't even ... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... be bothered to participate in the multi-party televised election debates. In the debate the Tories did turn up, she sent the Home Secretary, whose father had died days beforehand.

      Weak leadership.

      What's worse is that having been the one who called the election in the first place she gave the excuse that "there wasn't time for her to participate with the election because of the brexit business". She only just fell short of saying "What idiot called an election at this time?".

  4. or maybe encryption by johnjones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Theresa May wanted to have "back doors" in encryption schemes to allow government access and everyone with a clue laughed at her

    she stood by the claims and this is what happens....

    maybe next time a politician dreams of this we can remind them of how this turned out...

    John Jones

    1. Re:or maybe encryption by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly I doubt this had much impact. It was all down to May being completely useless, demonstrating bad judgement and almost unbelievable weakness. She announced policies, and then days later was bullied into changing them.

      That and Corbyn being actually really, really good.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. There's a saying... by dasunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Tories have played stupid games in the last two elections they called for. They've won stupid prizes as a result.

  6. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh crikey look at the whiny little snowflake.

    The right wing nutjobs are convinced slashdot is dominated by evil commie leftist progressive SJW mangina race traitors or whatever.

    The loony left think that slashdot is dominated by the gun totin' racist,sexist, transphobic denialist rightwing nutjobs.

    Has it possibly occurred to you that slashdot actually has a better spread than most places which makes it less of an echo chamber and more of a yelling chamber?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  7. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot

    Well I'd say it goes under the 'stuff that matters' part of the slogan. As a European one of the reasons I like political stories on Slashdot, especially political stories from outisde the US is that it's interesting to read american commentary on these matters. I mean, I often do not agree but it doesn't matter, it gives me a perspective on the matters that I feel I do not get from simply reading something like CNN or other american news sources.

    In case there are others who feel the same and for what it's worth here's my take on this topic: The British right has effectively sunk their own ship. The Brexit campaign was never meant to succeed, but rather it was meant to be used as a PR-campaign for Farage and his ilk in preparation for the next eelctions. Pretty much everyone, on the right and the left, assumed people would vote remain. This lead to 2 things that started this cascade of clusterfucks:
    1. The Brexit side felt they could make pretty much any claims they wanted. After all, they weren't actually going to win, so while they're at it might as well take it over the top for maximal visibility. Hence the absurd claims that by resigning they'd be able to pour hundreds of millions more into health care, or maintain complete control of their borders while still being free to trade with the Union like before, and so on.
    2. The Remain side, equally convinced that they'd win easily - after all, who'd be stupid enough to fall for the extravagant hyperbole of the Brexit camp - did not do a solid campaign at all. Granted, I'm, not a Brit but I was left with the impression that they were totally unable to craft a message of their own, other than essentially trying to signal "leaving the Union would be bad for reasons X, Y and Z". This is when I knew they were screwed. You're essentially up against a populists wet dream: an popular vote where the other side gets to wrap themselves in a flag and talk about 'freedom'. That's really hard to counter, because the nuanced arguments about the benefits of a trade union are trumped by the idealistic talk.

    These two effects combined were enough to tilt the scales and now they're left in a situation that no-one really wanted. The Brexit camp has mostly ran to the hills and scattered, realizing well ahead of time that they've scored a massive pyrrhic victory and that by the time the effects of a brexit hit they don't want to be anywhere near responsibilities. This leaves the political establishment in a weird spot, where the resignation process has to be overseen by people who didn't really want to resign in the first place. May, herself a remainer, looked at all of this and probably figured that since she lost to raging populist she might as well do a full u-turn and attempt to go 'full populist' to solidify support for the conservatives. So she adopted a hardline stance on Brexit where they're trying to strongarm the Union into giving them everything they want even though from a purely realpolitik/game theory point of view the UK is at a massive disadvantage in these negotiations, so trying to play hardball is an insanely stupid move. She also called the elections in an attempt to gather support for her newly found stance of 'brexit means brexit' and 'no deal is better than a bad deal' -stance.

    However by this time most of Brittain seems to have realized how much they were in fact duped by the Brexit campaign. That indeed, the majority of the claims made by the campaign about the benefits of resigning are outright lies. Many are feeling remorseful, and indeed it seems based on the polls if the vote was held today Remain would win

    What can we learn from this? Well, the number one issue to be learned is that putting decisions of this scale to a binding popular vote with a simple majority is a suicidal move because people aren't really that well informed on complex matters like the role of the Union, which allows populists (from both sides) to essentially ma

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  8. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even 250 seats is too much for her, let alone 313.

    But what has UK politics got to do with slashdot, did I miss something?

    Theresa May is (was?) one of the leading figures in attempts to censor the internet in the UK, and this is entirely relevant to Your Rights Online.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Re:actually by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Corbyn got more votes for Labour than they have had since 1997. You can slice it any number of ways, but the fact is he took a 25 point deficit and reduced it to near zero.

    Hopefully turmoil in the Tory party will prevent any kind of DUP deal, but I'm not optimistic. Like the Lib Dems, they may be unable to resist tasting a little bit of power. Like the Libs Dems, the Tories will screw them.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. How the Scots can F the Brits by Portal1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the SNP would agree to form a coalition with the conservatives, on the single condition that they can leave the UK and stay in the EU, they can get their independence.
    It will give the British and Welsh people what they voted for, and I think soon will regret.
    And it will not be their problem anymore.

    The Scots voted in 2014 only to stay in the UK, because leaving the UK would have meant leaving the EU.
    And in 2016 they voted mainly to remain, as they did not want to leave the EU.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
  11. Re:actually by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes but do you know why Labour had a 25 point deficit? Jeremy Corbyn.

    Jeremy Corbyn is fucking useless. His only positive point was that his opponent in this election turned out to be even more fucking useless.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  12. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is the troll moderation on Slashdot. Obviously as one of the loony left I have no idea if other loonies are doing it to conservatives, but I'm certain that left leaning posts attract a lot of bad moderation designed to silence dissenting views.

    I'll say it again - if the system was changed so that -1 mods counted for less when there also +1 mods, it would really help.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll say it again - if the system was changed so that -1 mods counted for less when there also +1 mods, it would really help.

    Typical leftist, wanting to give out prizes for participating. And who will pay for these +mods? The taxpayer, that's who.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a British citizen, I have to agree with much of what you say, but let me offer a slightly different perspective, perhaps.

    I think one of the main problems in British politics over the last several decades has been the way Labour deserted its natural core voters: the working class, in a wider sense - not just the traditional factory workers, but everybody in a simillar position in society; all us that are destined to be employees, basically, rather than business owners. Blair tried to widen the scope, but lost sight of the working class and became enamoured with what one can call 'neo-capitalism' (well, I'm trying to be kind - not sure if he really deserves it); that is not to say that it is impossible for Labour to appeal to those who don't traditionally feel they are 'working class' - I think it is very possible, but you have to persuade people to rethink their position in society and realise that it isn't somehow embarrassing to be working class. Corbyn's jaw-dropping, explosive rise shows us that a lot of people felt that so-called New Labour was a mistake, and that they do in fact want them to remember the old values and bring them in to the modern reality; I think Corbyn at least has the intellectual span to envision this, and if the party can unite behind him, they could pull it off.

    The Tories gambled and lost; they misread the situation, but I am not convinced that this is Theresa May's fault - she is in many ways one of the few good Conservatives, and I like her, but she is surrounded by the old-style 'nasty tories', as she once called them; the kind satirised in 'The New Statesman' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Statesman). The Tories, under David Cameron tried to re-invent themselves as 'nice, and in favour of social justice, but I think it never rang true, and you kept seeing the jeering, private-school raised bully through the varnish on a regular basis. They will form the next government, I'm sure, and they deserve it; if anybody deserves struggling with the mess of Brexit and the inevitable failures that will come off it, it is the Tories.

    So here we are - fatefully moving towards Brexit, as if it was just unavoidable now; a very British kind of fatalism, I think. The truth is, of course, that we can halt this process at any time; we may have to eat humble pie and come back hat in hand, but of course we can. Just turn the idea around: if the remain side had won by such a slim majority, we would immediately have had the leavers shouting about how unfair it all was, and they would have been campaigning on and on now; so why should we just accept what is increasingly looking like a very bad idea with a heavy sigh? That simply does not make sense.

    I have little doubt that we will come back - but next time, I hope the EU is a more ambitious union, not just a glorified market place with a few extra curls, but a full political union - a federal state or something like that.

  15. Said it before by BlueCoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Brexit isn't a foregone conclusion. It's also two years of negotiations. There should also be negotiations to stay. At the end of the negotiations there should be another referendum or maybe even two or three until there is a significant majority.

    Chief among issues is immigration. Call it racist all you want but a country does not feel like a country if it can't control it's own borders. Furthermore the richer nations really do need to contribute more for the border protection in the eastern nations.

    There is also opportunity to change the current way the EU does business (high handed) specifically in it's regulations and how nations might choose to opt out. The way I see it "most" regulations should take 10 or more years or say three elections so that opposition can be organized to reverse course.

    Furthermore banking needs to change. Stop the bailouts that make certain people rich. Just declare bankruptcy already and get good people into Greece and Italy to rebuild something sane. Bankruptcy should always be on the table and almost automatic to insure that the people investing money are doing so on sound business principles rather than just a promise from the EU to guarantee their money.

    1. Re:Said it before by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU needs fewer opt-outs, not more. The whole point of the single market, which is essential for truly free trade, is that no member state has an unfair advantage. The only reason people ever want opt-outs is to get an advantage.

      That's why the UK is doomed in the Brexit negotiations. The UK seems to think that it can get some kind of special deal where it gives its industries huge advantages over the EU, but clearly the EU is never going to accept that and will offset the advantage with tariffs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  16. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by Maritz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slahsdot is a hotbed of extreme leftists, and the defeat of a middle-of-the-road conservative makes them want to gloat in a venue they know will be kept as a blissful monoculture by moderation.

    lol. Much triggered.

    The dark hand of 'extreme leftism' at work here, folks.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  17. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by coastwalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seconded. I can always be guaranteed a good debate on Slashdot compared to most other media. It is the very fact that people with completely opposing views battle it out here that makes it worth the visit.

    --
    Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  18. Re:Weak and wobbly indeed by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have little doubt that we will come back - but next time, I hope the EU is a more ambitious union, not just a glorified market place with a few extra curls, but a full political union - a federal state or something like that.

    Possibly, but once we're out (and that does seem to be the way things are headed, for whatever form of "out" we end up with - fatalism or not), we're not going to be coming back in any time soon because of the required concessions, at least some of which will probably be needed with the "cap in hand, abort Article 50" approach too for that matter. When the UK joined the EU, we got a whole bunch of concessions because our economy was fucked and we needed them, although the EU also wanted us because they thought the likely UK recovery would ultimately benefit the EU and saying "no" to anyone would scupper the "One Federal Europe" vision they were starting to aim for.

    Since then membership requirements have changed - things like adoption of the Euro, Schengen, and other things we are currently exempt from have been mandatory for many of the countries of the current EU, and there's no way ALL of those countries - and membership requires it to be "all" - are going to let the UK back in without the same commitments. Not to mention anything else they might add once they UK's repeated vetoing of anything that moves them closer to a Federal State gets cut loose. 48% might have voted Remain in the referendum, but that was on the assumption of maintaining the status quo; I can't see anything like that percentage of the current population agreeing to adopting the Euro and Schengen to get back in, no matter how screwed the economy/Sterling might be and how secure the EU might become from Islamic fundamentalism, which obviously isn't happening soon. We're currently just too sentimental about Sterling (even as we march towards a cashless economy and it becomes mostly moot), and too fearful over the relatively miniscule risk of being a victim of terrorism for that to happen.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  19. Social care nailed her. by Going_Digital · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When she announced that the conservatives would take the value of peoples homes into account when assessing funding for home care she lost a big chunk of their core supporters. The majority of Conservative voters are middle aged, middle class homeowners. They feel that by buying their home they have been responsible and had to cut back on spending for discretionary items to pay for it. They feel it grossly unfair that people who have lived the high life and spent all their money on holidays and recreation get free care where as they get their home taken from them. She gambled that she could push this through because people would still vote conservative because they had no confidence in the labour opposition. But that gamble didn't pay off, people turned to the opposition.

  20. Re:actually by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Corbyn was doing badly because his MPs were not backing him. The membership loved him, but the MPs thought he could not win. They were wrong, he turned out to be popular with the electorate and more than that a great campaigner/speaker.

    Corbyn got young people to vote which is a longstanding source of failure for the left and not just in the UK. For that alone he deserves a whole box of Cuban cigars. He also took a few leafs out of Donald Trump's book, held rallies and came up with a set of simple targeted messages about fixing various grievances. Meanwhile there was Theresa May talking about allowing fox hunting again (when 80% of the nation hates the idea because it stinks of aristocracy), being mean to old people, taking meals away from school kids and defunding the NHS so I think Theresa May's ivory tower view on the world didn't hurt Corbyn either.