Why did the conservatives take the risk ?
Reflecting a bit, with hindsight now, on the motives to have a snap election
Looking on internet for opinions at the time of that announcement that point out the possible risk of a smaller majority/hung parliament.
I cannot find much, except for a very few general remarks that polling is always difficult in UK (I guess also because of the electoral representative system).
Apparently risk free.
In my professional life (retired now) I worked more than 20 years for a big UK company (listed at the London stock exchange).
If Head Office had something that we did not want, we (managers in continental EU) said not really "no". Our line of action against it was usually emphasising the risks.
That worked quite well, especially when local legislation/culture was involved, but also in general.
So the question now nagging in my head is why ?
Is that risk minded culture only in UK business and not in politics ?
Was it personal, would another PM have done the same ?
I think that it was her own decision. Another Prime Minister might have done it very dfferently.
The way I see it is that Theresa May was a reasonably competent minister, but as Prime Minister she was somewhat over stretched.
She failed to take the initiative and was from the very first reacting against the Brexit vote and its critics. It was in my opinion essential that
she create an environment for putting forward ideas on post Brexit agricultural, financial, immigration, industrial, social and trade policy etc
so as to create constructive debate and to positively enthuse parliament with the idea of being responsible for determining the nation's future.
Instead she got bogged down with the idea of creating an enormous repreal bill that would unecessarily incorporate vast quantities of EU law.
When she realised that determined guerrilla resistance would slow that process down to snail pace, she concluded that she needed a general
election mandate and a higher majority to push it through. What she did not understand was that she needed to present a positive vision to the
electorate to buy in to instead (like Hillary) believing that a promise of managerialism and a negative campaign against her opponent would suffice.
Don't get me wrong, it was an incredible result, and I'm absolutely delighted. But if you don't get a majority of seats in parliament (or in your country if you're a nationalist party), you've lost. That is, always has been, and always will be, the definition of "winning" in UK politics: how many seats you get in parliament.
Yes, but there will be another general election before long. I regard this as nothing more than a nil nil result on a two leg football match.