From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

The UK had elections today for Scotland, Wales and a whole bunch of
local councils in England - NOT national elections for Parliament - and
Labour is getting trounced even worse than expected in early returns.

It's still early in the counting process so this *may* all turn around
but if this result holds for the remaining seats being counted, Labour
stands to lose EIGHTY PERCENT of their seats. Even more interestingly,
nearly ALL of the lost seats are going to the Reform Party led by Nigel Farage. Everyone's been predicting that Labour would have a very bad
night under the extremely unpopular Prime Minister Starmer but many
pundits had been thinking that a lot of the Labour vote would go to the Greens. (In the UK, the new leader of the Greens, Zach Polansky, has transformed the Green Party from being a party mostly about the
environment to one that was far more concerned with things like
Palestine and other issues of concern to their new Muslim members.)

If most people go to the Reform Party, it implies a solid shift to the
right of the whole population, not just a split in the Left between
Labour and the Greens.

This is going to put enormous pressure on Keir Starmer to resign the
office of Prime Minister. There are other candidates for the job
although none are a clear favourite and most are viewed as worse that
Starmer since almost all of them are farther left than he is. (The
Labour MPs though have a very vocal Leftist cohort.)

This could, of course, all turn around in the coming hours. I still
remember when early returns in the Quebec Independence Referendum in
1995 were very strongly pro-Independence and I thought we'd lost Quebec
and were going to see the whole country dismembered eventually. But by
the time all of the votes were counted, the pro-Canada votes finally won
out in a squeaker.

Still, I think a lot of right-leaning voters will be very happy if this
trend continues because it is widely believed that the local elections
are a very strong indication of what's going to happen in the next
national elections. Unfortunately, that election is probably not going
to happen until 2029 and the UK could experience a lot more distress as
Labour continues to destroy the economy and undermine social cohesion as
they have since they were elected in 2024.
--
Rhino

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Fri, 8 May 2026 00:02:59 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

This is going to put enormous pressure on Keir Starmer to resign the
office of Prime Minister. There are other candidates for the job
although none are a clear favourite and most are viewed as worse that >Starmer since almost all of them are farther left than he is. (The
Labour MPs though have a very vocal Leftist cohort.)

Yes they do and there have been a couple of issues on which Starmer
announced a policy one way and your "Leftist cohort" went gaga and
since this 'cohort' has enough seats, Starmer can't carry out his
policies without their support - so in nearly every case where Starmer
reverses himself (as he has in supporting Trump vs Iran) that is the
reason why.

I know most Americans have a hard time understanding the concept of non-confidence votes in the Commons leading to early elections but
Rhino and I certainly do since our government works the same way.

(And there's a reasonable argument to be made on both sides as to
whether "non-confidence motions" leading to early elections are a good
thing or a bad thing. Either way it couldn't happen in the US unless
the House became the senior house of Congress - both in the UK and
Canada there are the House of Lords and Senate respectively where if
the ruling party loses a vote it doesn't matter - only if they lose a 'confidence motion' does an election get triggered)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-05-08 3:03 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 8 May 2026 00:02:59 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

This is going to put enormous pressure on Keir Starmer to resign the
office of Prime Minister. There are other candidates for the job
although none are a clear favourite and most are viewed as worse that
Starmer since almost all of them are farther left than he is. (The
Labour MPs though have a very vocal Leftist cohort.)

Yes they do and there have been a couple of issues on which Starmer
announced a policy one way and your "Leftist cohort" went gaga and
since this 'cohort' has enough seats, Starmer can't carry out his
policies without their support - so in nearly every case where Starmer reverses himself (as he has in supporting Trump vs Iran) that is the
reason why.

I know most Americans have a hard time understanding the concept of non-confidence votes in the Commons leading to early elections but
Rhino and I certainly do since our government works the same way.

(And there's a reasonable argument to be made on both sides as to
whether "non-confidence motions" leading to early elections are a good
thing or a bad thing. Either way it couldn't happen in the US unless
the House became the senior house of Congress - both in the UK and
Canada there are the House of Lords and Senate respectively where if
the ruling party loses a vote it doesn't matter - only if they lose a 'confidence motion' does an election get triggered)

Let me ask you - and anyone else following this thread - what you think
about the idea of giving the electorate of a country the right to demand
fresh elections even if governing party still has time on their mandate
and hasn't lost a vote of confidence? Obviously, there'd have to be a significant threshold to trigger what would presumably be a referendum -
or People's Vote of Non-Confidence - otherwise a handful of malcontents
could trigger elections over any trifling thing or fringe issue.

Do you think that would improve our democracy?

I think the politicians would be absolutely aghast at the prospect of
someone besides themselves controlling when an election happens and
would fight any such legislation tooth and claw but suppose it actually
got enacted: would politicians play less games and do less damage if an election could be forced without too ridiculously high a threshold.

I have absolutely no doubt that Brits would LOVE to have an election now
just to see the end of Starmer and Labour. I am equally certain that if
we'd had that option a couple of years ago when Trudeau was refusing to
take a million hints that he should step down, we would have taken it.

It seems to me that if we could force elections when the politicians
were really doing badly, they might keep more promises and play far
fewer political games.

I imagine Americans might like such a move too. Trump is not doing
really well in the polls and the Democrats and the media - but I repeat
myself - would love to see the end of him. They'd surely support snap elections if the Constitution allowed for it, at least for Trump,
although they might have objected strenuously if Republicans proposed it
for one of *their* presidents. But it could have gotten Sleepy Joe out
of office a good bit faster if it was an option.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-05-08 4:58 p.m., Rhino wrote:

On 2026-05-08 3:03 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 8 May 2026 00:02:59 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

This is going to put enormous pressure on Keir Starmer to resign the
office of Prime Minister. There are other candidates for the job
although none are a clear favourite and most are viewed as worse that
Starmer since almost all of them are farther left than he is. (The
Labour MPs though have a very vocal Leftist cohort.)

Yes they do and there have been a couple of issues on which Starmer
announced a policy one way and your "Leftist cohort" went gaga and
since this 'cohort' has enough seats, Starmer can't carry out his
policies without their support - so in nearly every case where Starmer
reverses himself (as he has in supporting Trump vs Iran) that is the
reason why.

I know most Americans have a hard time understanding the concept of
non-confidence votes in the Commons leading to early elections but
Rhino and I certainly do since our government works the same way.

(And there's a reasonable argument to be made on both sides as to
whether "non-confidence motions" leading to early elections are a good
thing or a bad thing. Either way it couldn't happen in the US unless
the House became the senior house of Congress - both in the UK and
Canada there are the House of Lords and Senate respectively where if
the ruling party loses a vote it doesn't matter - only if they lose a
'confidence motion' does an election get triggered)

Let me ask you - and anyone else following this thread - what you think about the idea of giving the electorate of a country the right to demand fresh elections even if governing party still has time on their mandate
and hasn't lost a vote of confidence? Obviously, there'd have to be a significant threshold to trigger what would presumably be a referendum -
or People's Vote of Non-Confidence - otherwise a handful of malcontents could trigger elections over any trifling thing or fringe issue.

Do you think that would improve our democracy?

I think the politicians would be absolutely aghast at the prospect of someone besides themselves controlling when an election happens and
would fight any such legislation tooth and claw but suppose it actually
got enacted: would politicians play less games and do less damage if an election could be forced without too ridiculously high a threshold.

I have absolutely no doubt that Brits would LOVE to have an election now just to see the end of Starmer and Labour. I am equally certain that if
we'd had that option a couple of years ago when Trudeau was refusing to
take a million hints that he should step down, we would have taken it.

It seems to me that if we could force elections when the politicians
were really doing badly, they might keep more promises and play far
fewer political games.

I imagine Americans might like such a move too. Trump is not doing
really well in the polls and the Democrats and the media - but I repeat myself - would love to see the end of him. They'd surely support snap elections if the Constitution allowed for it, at least for Trump,
although they might have objected strenuously if Republicans proposed it
for one of *their* presidents. But it could have gotten Sleepy Joe out
of office a good bit faster if it was an option.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has published an analysis of the election result and I
think he's right on the money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRYadFPKLbc [10 minutes]

The big challenge for Reform will be to DELIVER on their promises at the
local level; otherwise, they will be discarded just as the Tories and
Labour were as just another bunch that talks the talk but doesn't walk
the walk.

I was not remotely surprised to hear him say that right-leaning parties
need to come together and that he modestly made no mention of his
possible involvement in forming such a coalition. Honestly, I think he
may well end up being Prime Minister after the next general election as
a figure that the Conservatives, Reform and Restore Britain (Rupert
Lowe's new party) could potentially agree upon. I'd *LOVE* to see that
but it may just be wishful thinking given the strong egos of the various people that might also want to lead such a grouping.

If Reform elects the most MPs, as appears likely now, it will surely be
Farage that demands to lead and it would be hard to resist the argument
that most of the MPs are his. In any case, Rees-Mogg certainly ought to
have a strong shot at a senior cabinet post. I think he'd make a
brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer if he couldn't be PM.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On May 7, 2026 at 9:02:59 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

The UK had elections today for Scotland, Wales and a whole bunch of
local councils in England - NOT national elections for Parliament - and Labour is getting trounced even worse than expected in early returns.

Amelia sends her congrats to Reform and puts Starmer where he belongs:


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2052812290802548736/vid/avc1/1092x720/aN6qrZIl2Cu5HGTt.mp4?tag=27c


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-05-09 6:36 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:

On May 7, 2026 at 9:02:59 PM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

The UK had elections today for Scotland, Wales and a whole bunch of
local councils in England - NOT national elections for Parliament - and
Labour is getting trounced even worse than expected in early returns.

Amelia sends her congrats to Reform and puts Starmer where he belongs:

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2052812290802548736/vid/avc1/1092x720/aN6qrZIl2Cu5HGTt.mp4?tag=27c

Starmer might not even object to that treatment in real life. There's a
trial going on right now that the legacy media seems to be avoiding the
story, which allegedly involves Starmer and some rent boys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRYadFPKLbc [6 minutes]
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2