What can TM be thinking of?

OK. So thankfully (at this time of night) it is not rocket science. In the 10:22 post I commented on "the half of the country that are not voting for May". In my reply to SAAK's 'most' I also pointed out that "Roughly half the seats in the local election were won by the Tories". So, the 'half' NOT voting for May are the other half to the roughly half ... WON by the Tories.

However, I did take it one step further in my reply to SAAK and pointed out that these halves are only half of the less than 30% of the country that voted and therefore equate to roughly 15% of possible voters voting for May. These are the only ACTUAL figures we have had of voters putting their cross to support her and I would suggest that 15% is a long way from 'most'.

Of course, this only tells us what has happened so far and there is no reason to believe (if fact good reason to be very careful not to) that May will get just or only 15% of all voters in the GE. Also the halves are very different. May's half is all for the Cons but the other half is split between the other parties so she is very likely to win the election but not, as SAAK said, with 'most' of the voters backing her or even, necessarily, a majority of the voters because of FPTP.

Sorry if I have made that complicated. Perhaps someone who is more statistically minded than me can explain it simply.

Another factor is that the whole country, including the cities, wasn't involved in these elections. Although it was a good result for the Conservatives, it doesn't necessarily give an accurate prediction of the GE result.

When saak said she thinks TM is strong PM and "long she may reign" and then added "and most of Britain does too", it reminded me of a comment by Farage on this week's "Any Questions" when he claimed that 70% of the country now backed brexit. That sort of nonsense is fake news and should not go unchallenged.

Propagandists have always known, as Goebbels pointed out, that a lie repeated enough times becomes "the truth". Not the real truth, of course, but a fictitious truth, or as Kellyann Conway describes it, an "alternative fact". All that matters is the number of people who believe the lie. Unfortunately this can work as quite a lot of people believed the lie on the bus.

Had the misfortune to catch TM pontificating on the news yesterday and.......do you know what?.......she wants "strong and stable government"........now who would have thought. At least we know she is capable of learning a soundbite - and repeating it ad nauseam.

I was also very struck by the stridently personal nature of her comments - it was vote for ME, rather than vote for our party.

Repeating strong and stable isn't actually a bad idea ( psychologically) perhaps Labour should be doing it.

roses!

She also only wants people to vote for HER - not the party -- so only those living in Maidenhead are able to comply!!

That's a good idea!

perhaps Labour should be doing it.

They really should but isn't it the Devil who has all the best tunes?

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know! ( if we are swapping old sayings)

It's not a tune though, is it?

Meanwhile, Corbyn's refusing to contemplate the prospect of losing the GE...all bluff and bluster.

Unless he honestly thinks he will win! ( surely not?)

Bless him, he's being positive!

(and why not?)

I have really enjoyed reading the various view. One little comment from me, is this GE or a referendum? For I believed at a GE you voted for a constituency MP not a Party leader, so what's this "vote for me" rubbish? It could result in that we end up with many appalling MP's who are really not fit to represent their constituency.

If we are voting for Teresa May, should her name be in place of "Conservative" on the ballot paper?.

That WOULD be interesting James.
Perhaps lots of Tory voters could be persuaded to write May in the box instead of a cross.

Yes, because the electorate is that thick...

www.indy100.com/article/terrifying-tory-policies-tax-air-pollution-general-election-update-7722316

Why you shouldn't vote for TM.

TM is having her strings pulled. She's being told what to say based on lots of geeky "big data" analysis. She's being kept away from the public because she is so gawky and awkward. She's been told she can't go on a TV debate because she's failed the training course. David Cameron also, told he would come across v badly, so refuse to participate.

Snort...

She's been told she can't go on a TV debate because she's failed the training course.
Is that as fact?
Do people have to go on a training course before they appear on tv?
Did Diane Abbott pass it?

David Cameron didn't seem to have any problems when he kept 'agreeing with Nick' prior to the coalition. If anyone should have been advised not to take part, it was Gordon Brown.

Ana and Jalima ? Haha.
I winder where all these 'factoids' originate? Oneangryvoice?Squawkbox or whatever?

Wonder!I think I must go back to using the computer, too many typos on iPad.

Actually I think it would be much better if nobody did these awful tv debates.
Look at the ghastly Trump/Clinton ones and also Macron/Le Pen and any other one.Elections are better without them.

Is Diane Abbot forcing another election on the country because she feels it is her due to run it without any opposition Jalima?