A maximum of five years in power. The PM can ask the King to dissolve Parliament and call a General Election at any time. But he must do so not more than five years from the beginning of this Parliament (which will open with the King's Speech on July 17).
I have some takeaways, but first a few highlights:
1) Jacob Rees-Mogg had to stand there on stage next to an anthropomorphic corn on the cob to hear that he had lost his seat. That that wasn't all--his loss provided Labour with its 326th seat, officially making Labour the majority party in Parliament. The staging, the timing--it was all so perfect for a man who is as responsible as anyone for the collapse of the Conservative Party. Rees-Mogg actively developed and nurtured the racist populist fringe that became Reform UK, thinking that he could domesticate it and keep it as a pet. But as we have seen in the United States, the leopard always eats their faces. And so it was with Rees-Mogg.
2) A huge number of Tories looked shellshocked, as though they genuinely didn't expect this outcome. And that amazes me. The polls have been predicting this for months. And I don't even think you needed a poll to sense the mood of the electorate.
3) But through their shellshock, they were remarkably candid. Tories honestly called it a "disaster," a "catastrophe," and a "bloodbath." But absolutely none of them called it "rigged." There is a deep consensus in the UK as to the constitutional democratic structure that seems to be lacking in the United States. And it's quite alarming and distressing when you see it lain quite so bare.
So a few additional take-aways:
1) I don't know what the Conservative Party is today. Twenty years ago, it was the party of both Archie Leach and his racist father in Kingston-on-Hull (people think Archie came from money, but really he only married into it). But yesterday, Archie's dad voted Reform UK. And Archie is now living in Rio with that American lass with the great tits. So who is voting Conservative these days?
I think the answer is "not very many people."
The Tories, I fear, are going to take the lessons that the Republican Party took from 2012 and decide that they need to consolidate around a base of racist, xenophobic, anti-capitalistic, and populist voters. If they do that, it will be an even smaller party. But people like Suella Braverman will be safe, and that's frequently the consideration that trumps all others.
2) The people of Clacton are functionally not going to have any representation in Parliament. Nigel Farange made that pretty clear in his victory speech. He has no ability to or interest in actually holding office. He's only interested in campaigning for the next election. And for a down-and-out town like Clacton, that's the last thing it needs.
3) The cause of Scottish independence looks to be pretty much cooked, at least for now. SNP with only 9 seats is a disaster for that party.
I guess I'm a little surprised that Brexit didn't immediately bring about Scottish independence with an eye toward rejoining the EU. But the problem is that when you get into government, as the SNP is at Holyrood, you have to actually govern. And the SNP hasn't been very good at it. It's really the same disease that infected the Tories with the Brexit vote. Great--you won. Now actually govern. And they couldn't.
4) Which brings us to Labour. What the fuck is that party? It legit had no real policy positions in its manifesto to distinguish it from the Conservatives. And as has been rehashed, the Conservative policy decisions have led the UK to an absolutely abysmal economic (and, it must be said, cultural) state. So Labour has a sweeping mandate, but to do what?
The new Chancellor is going to have a real challenge. The British economy is stagnating. But government expenditures desperately need to go up. The American solution is debt. And, in all honesty--the evidence reflects that it's not a bad solution. But damn, the UK's debt is already around 90% of GDP. But the United States is around 125%, so fuck it--why not?