To think Starmer will be gone by the end of Friday? Or will it be Monday evening?

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Whoever you are voting for today, it's probably not Labour - they might loose 2,000 seats.

How long exactly will it be before he resigns?

No.

And Starmer will be going nowhere. Sadly Labour are a bit short on decent applicants to take his place. Andy Burnham isn’t ready for the role yet. Raynor is an absolute no-no. If she gets anywhere near number 10, it would only be on the back of her lefty pals, and the public would immediately demand a general election, which would end pretty badly for Labour with their popularity being at rock bottom. I hate Labour, but I would rather Starmer be at the helm of the Government than the alternative rag tag idiots on offer.

Political legitimacy.

Did Truss have a war or two on at the time?

Lol

Yes, a majority in the House of Commons.

I thought the FT was a favourite of yours?

It would be amusing to look back at this thread in a few years time, after we've all suffered at the hands of Reform for a while, pining for the Labour days.

That’s not what a mandate means.

Political legitimacy and a majority in the House of Commons have nothing to do with each other

It’s exactly what a mandate means. What’s your version of political legitimacy? And please don’t reference polls.

I went to the polling station tonight, and I got in the booth, and I genuinely couldn't make my mind betweeen writing "None of you fuckers, because, etc, etc" across it or not. In the end I reluctantly voted for Labour, because it's a local election, not a referendum on Starmer, and I'd rather Labour got it locally (despite their less than impressive effort) than some Refom idiots. I know some some the local Labour people. They are decent, working-class folk, trying to the best for their community. Unless there's a sea-change, though, Labour will not get my vote at the next GE.

No, on Monday he will tell us he

“Has been humbled”
”has listened to you, the public”
”is furious that change has not happened faster”
”<<insert something patronising here>>”
etc ….

And then announce a(nother) reset / relaunch.

He sincerely believes he is our saviour and we just need to have that explained to us better.

Best outcome imo would be Labour do very badly, but Starmer stays. Reform win big and utterly mess up as councillors In 2029 Reform plus Tory plus Ulster Unionists <325 seats. Green Lib Dem Labour Nationalist coalition, with electoral reform, Rejoin EU & net zero a condition of coalition. PR introduced so 2029 is last FPTP election.

Obviously at the moment a Reform Tory government reporting to their bosses in Washington and their boss in The Kremlin, which sells.off the NHS, slashes benefits, expels foreigners, makes immigration all.but impossible & pulls further away from the EU is more likely

Well.

thank god none of that’s going to happen.

Or - announce his resignation…..

If that was literally what it meant we would still have fixed length parliaments (which I think we should)

There’s zero logic in that. We have parliaments that can’t exceed five years. So governments have a mandate of a maximum of five years provided they maintain a majority.

Sometimes I think people are wilfully stupid. The point is that it is not five years always five years which it should be. It’s that the government can actually call it whenever it wants.

Precisely. And until an election is called the incumbent government retains its mandate.

Err, yes it is.

The popularity of a government has nothing to do with it. It's purely the parliamentary numbers. Labour's majority is absolutely rock solid.

So, what does your crystal ball tell you will happen, if you know what won't happen you must know what will

He won't be resigning. Why should he? He's absolutely made the right decisions on the US war.

In the UK constitutional system, a government’s legal authority to govern comes from commanding a majority in the House of Commons, not directly from opinion polls or local elections. However, politically and democratically, it can reasonably be argued that a government has lost its public mandate if it suffers catastrophic electoral losses in local elections, for example losing around 80% of the seats it was defending. Local elections are one of the clearest opportunities for the electorate to express confidence or dissatisfaction between general elections. While they do not automatically trigger a change of government, losses on that scale would strongly suggest a collapse in public support, particularly if accompanied by large vote swings, low morale within the governing party, defections, or widespread public protest. In such circumstances, critics may argue that the government no longer possesses a meaningful democratic mandate for major constitutional, economic, or social changes, even if it still retains the technical legal right to govern until the next general election.

It’s quite arguable that absolutely no he did not.

However much more importantly, on 99 other issues he can be demonstrated to be an absolute twat