1. Conservatives would have done better if the election were held in 2018 or later.
The boundary changes produced by a commission go into effect then, reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons from 650 to 600 and, more important, improving Conservatives’ chances. By one calculation, applying the 2017 vote to the 2018 boundaries, Conservatives would have won 298 of the 600 seats, leaving them just 3 short of a majority. Their apparent coalition partner, the DUP, would be reduced from 10 to 7 seats, but those 7 added to the Conservatives’ 298 would yield a majority of 305. Moreover, the DUP’s Northern Ireland opponents, Sinn Fein, traditionally do not take their seats in the British Parliament. The calculation noted above predicts that with 2018 boundaries they would have won 9 rather than 8 seats. If so, that would mean only 591 MPs would take their seats, and Conservatives’ 298 seats would outnumber other parties’ 293.
2. This doesn’t derail or necessarily soften Brexit.
British analysts expect the election result to mean a “softer” Brexit, which may be the case. But two other factors should be kept in mind. One is that the Labour Party is on record for Brexit and for abandoning the European Union’s single market. The other is that Brexit was part of the Conservative Party’s 2017 manifesto (it wasn’t part of the manifesto when the party won a majority in 2015). That means that House of Lords, under unwritten tradition in place since World War II, must approve such a measure passed by the House of Commons. This is one reason (perhaps the one remaining good reason) that Theresa May called the election. For other possible reasons, see this Times opinion article by Matt Ridley, who is a Conservative voting member of the House of Lords.
3. Donald Trump’s invitation to come to the U.K. for a state visit this year is apparently being withdrawn. Quietly, amid all the hubbub over there about whether — or when — May is going to be ousted and all the hubbub over here about James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. That serves Trump well, but only if someone can prevent him from tweeting about it.
4. Trump’s tweet attacking — unfairly — London Mayor Sadiq Khan made a splash in Britain and may have cost Conservatives some crucial seats. Trump attacked Khan for saying that there was no reason for alarm, but the subject of Khan’s comment was the increased police presence, and he was simply saying people shouldn’t be alarmed by that. You can probably think of a rationale to criticize Khan, but it is certainly not the province of the president of the United States to critique the statements of municipal authorities. Trump could have left the subject alone after his tweet pledging support of Britain after the London Bridge attack, just as he could have refrained from issuing the “tapes” tweet which, according to Comey, inspired him to leak information and provoke the appointment of a special counsel. Self-defeating!
