General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Swinson could, if she were offered a second EU referendum. Johnson is consistently devoid of conviction or principles so this would give him an easy out of the whole mess if he can make up the ERG shortfall with Labour votes.

In theory perhaps; I personally cannot see them doing it. Even for a second referendum.

I also seriously doubt that would be offered. A second referendum loss for leave would be the end of Boris Johnson. He has made this entire election about Getting Brexit Done, so i couldnt see him in coalition with the Revoke Article 50 crowd

The Lib Dems were annihilated after the last coalition. Once bitten twice shy, but if there is to be a coalition involving LibDems, it is more likely Labour/SNP, as opposed to the Tories

Thats the cost of Johnsons Hard Brexit campaign - he is bordering on Radioactive, to anyone except right wingers

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why . Labour are seeking a second ref which could halt the entire mess.

Do you believe a leader who offers that, knowing full well it isn't what he actually wants and who has proposed a deal which includes the very thing a lot of Labour supporting brexiteers wanted to avoid?

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Swinson could, if she were offered a second EU referendum. Johnson is consistently devoid of conviction or principles so this would give him an easy out of the whole mess if he can make up the ERG shortfall with Labour votes.

That is true. Ed Davey interviewed by Andrew Neil c.2 weeks ago raised the possibility of a deal with johnson on that basis and have heard at least one other lib dem mention it too. Personally i think its unrealistic but you never know.

Letwin_Larry

here's another football lads!
might just be a non-story. but highly embarrassing nontheless.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7775979/Labours-John-Ashworth-trashes-party-secret-recording-saying-voters-stand-Corbyn.html

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

here's another football lads!
might just be a non-story. but highly embarrassing nontheless.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7775979/Labours-John-Ashworth-trashes-party-secret-recording-saying-voters-stand-Corbyn.html

Saw ashworth try to wriggle out of it on bbc earlier. Obviously true, he tried to dismiss it as banter. Embarrassing but not very damaging in the bigger picture i think.

ancapailldorcha

liamtech wrote: »

In theory perhaps; I personally cannot see them doing it. Even for a second referendum.

I also seriously doubt that would be offered. A second referendum loss for leave would be the end of Boris Johnson. He has made this entire election about Getting Brexit Done, so i couldnt see him in coalition with the Revoke Article 50 crowd

The Lib Dems were annihilated after the last coalition. Once bitten twice shy, but if there is to be a coalition involving LibDems, it is more likely Labour/SNP, as opposed to the Tories

Thats the cost of Johnsons Hard Brexit campaign - he is bordering on Radioactive, to anyone except right wingers

She utterly detests Corbyn though. Fanatically so in my opinion. They might have been annihilated but this time they get to be the party who stopped Brexit and Johnson has committed to a spending spree insofar as he commits to anything.

Aegir wrote: »

Do you believe a leader who offers that, knowing full well it isn't what he actually wants and who has proposed a deal which includes the very thing a lot of Labour supporting brexiteers wanted to avoid?

I do. He says he will stay neutral which is a more sincere position than I expected. It's up to the public. Either they own Brexit or cancel it.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Saw ashworth try to wriggle out of it on bbc earlier. Obviously true, he tried to dismiss it as banter. Embarrassing but not very damaging in the bigger picture i think.

well if his 'er "joshing" has a grain of truth, and he is in a position to know firsthand, then Lab are in deep trouble.

'Outside of the city seats, if you are in small-town Midlands and North, it's abysmal out there.

'They don't like Johnson but they can't stand Corbyn and they think Labour's blocked Brexit.
'I think middle-class graduates – Remainy people – Labour's probably doing well among… but not in big enough numbers to deny the Tories a majority.'

sid waddell

Oh look, the Tories have their very own IRA:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1204326053898051585

liamtech

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She utterly detests Corbyn though. Fanatically so in my opinion. They might have been annihilated but this time they get to be the party who stopped Brexit and Johnson has committed to a spending spree insofar as he commits to anything.



I do. He says he will stay neutral which is a more sincere position than I expected. It's up to the public. Either they own Brexit or cancel it.

That is true, but Corbyn's position as leader could be the price labour pays for a coalition. I also dont truly believe her hatred of Corbyn is as intense as she suggests - The Lib Dems are the 'Third' party, and therefore seem hostile to everyone. Also, everyone is hostile to Corbyn, but i dare say not to the Labour Party itself

Iv criticized Corbyn a lot (reluctantly), and i do genuinely believe Labour could be doing better with a pragmatist in charge; Perhaps they will have one in a coalition

It will be interesting to see what happens, but i just cannot see the Lib Dems in Coalition with the Tories again - unless they were to enter coalition - get the referendum, win it (assuming remain win), and then pull the plug on Johnson- but they could be punished for this

For a smaller party, the only way to expand the base (especially in FPTP) is to stay in opposition and continually make and maintain gains - or enter coalitions on proper manifesto pledges and pull the plug if they dont get to impliment them - but thats dangerous

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well if his 'er "joshing" has a grain of truth, and he is in a position to know firsthand, then Lab are in deep trouble.

'Outside of the city seats, if you are in small-town Midlands and North, it's abysmal out there.

'They don't like Johnson but they can't stand Corbyn and they think Labour's blocked Brexit.
'I think middle-class graduates – Remainy people – Labour's probably doing well among… but not in big enough numbers to deny the Tories a majority.'

Oh yeah dont get me wrong, the position is grim in those leave seats, but i wouldnt exactly say thats news to anybody. That its a party member saying it is the alarming thing for sure. Was always going to be a huge challenge given the brexit vote in those areas, some of them over 70%.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

Do you believe a leader who offers that, knowing full well it isn't what he actually wants and who has proposed a deal which includes the very thing a lot of Labour supporting brexiteers wanted to avoid?

Are you trying to suggest a Labour government wouldn't hold a second referendum? Something that's in their manifesto, is widely popular amongst their MPs and activists, would be a condition for any coalition partner, and would have no downsides and only potential upsides for them?

Is that how desperate the Tory argument is becoming?

Joe_ Public

liamtech wrote: »

That is true, but Corbyn's position as leader could be the price labour pays for a coalition. I also dont truly believe her hatred of Corbyn is as intense as she suggests - The Lib Dems are the 'Third' party, and therefore seem hostile to everyone. Also, everyone is hostile to Corbyn, but i dare say not to the Labour Party itself

Iv criticized Corbyn a lot (reluctantly), and i do genuinely believe Labour could be doing better with a pragmatist in charge; Perhaps they will have one in a coalition

It will be interesting to see what happens, but i just cannot see the Lib Dems in Coalition with the Tories again - unless they were to enter coalition - get the referendum, win it (assuming remain win), and then pull the plug on Johnson- but they could be punished for this

For a smaller party, the only way to expand the base (especially in FPTP) is to stay in opposition and continually make and maintain gains - or enter coalitions on proper manifesto pledges and pull the plug if they dont get to impliment them - but thats dangerous

I think you'd have to do some extreme mental gymnastics to imagine labour dropping corbyn just to satisfy jo swinson. Might as well just go into coalition and make swinson pm there and then.

ancapailldorcha

liamtech wrote: »

That is true, but Corbyn's position as leader could be the price labour pays for a coalition. I also dont truly believe her hatred of Corbyn is as intense as she suggests - The Lib Dems are the 'Third' party, and therefore seem hostile to everyone. Also, everyone is hostile to Corbyn, but i dare say not to the Labour Party itself

Iv criticized Corbyn a lot (reluctantly), and i do genuinely believe Labour could be doing better with a pragmatist in charge; Perhaps they will have one in a coalition

It will be interesting to see what happens, but i just cannot see the Lib Dems in Coalition with the Tories again - unless they were to enter coalition - get the referendum, win it (assuming remain win), and then pull the plug on Johnson- but they could be punished for this

For a smaller party, the only way to expand the base (especially in FPTP) is to stay in opposition and continually make and maintain gains - or enter coalitions on proper manifesto pledges and pull the plug if they dont get to impliment them - but thats dangerous

Ditching Corbyn is meaningless and just illustrates how weak a leader she is. Even if Labour agree which would be absurd given that they'd be the overwhelming majority of such a coalition, they'd just replace him with someone just as left wing.

Infini

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She utterly detests Corbyn though. Fanatically so in my opinion. They might have been annihilated but this time they get to be the party who stopped Brexit and Johnson has committed to a spending spree insofar as he commits to anything.

Regardless of her personal feelings I think at the very least the'll have to come to a C&S agreement of some kind if they want to keep the conservatives out and at least get some of what they want at the end of all this. Giving the people a tangeble choice between an agreement that doesnt screw the people vs remaining should be the priority.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I do. He says he will stay neutral which is a more sincere position than I expected. It's up to the public. Either they own Brexit or cancel it.

It's a viable position at least though getting this out sooner would've helped by being clear his position was to honour the referendum but giving the people clear choices on the end result by a confirmatory referendum not the unicorns promised in the first one.

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

Oh look, the Tories have their very own IRA:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1204326053898051585

The first reply on that thread talking about the claim made on the bbc about all the parties being as bad as each other is the really annoying part. Its like when Kuennsberg tweets some absurd equivalence between some great whopping johnson lie and some trivial nonsense about corbyn and the queens speech. One of the parties is clearly much much worse than the others and that is being shown time and time again.

robinph

Johnson isn't going to offer a 2nd referendum in order to get back into No 10 if it just boils down to which side LD decide to fall.

But if Johnson were to offer that then surely Labour could just say "OK then, crack on and put it your deal up to a vote against remain and you can carry on being a minority government for a bit longer whilst the opposition actually control the house". Let the Tories own it if Brexit happens to win, or then come in and win another GE 6 months later after remain win with a different Labour leader and the Tories shamed for having wasted 4 years on the Brexit nonsense that the population then decided they didn't actually want.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think you'd have to do some extreme mental gymnastics to imagine labour dropping corbyn just to satisfy jo swinson. Might as well just go into coalition and make swinson pm there and then.

At the start of the campaign I thought this was not only possible but actually likely, but that was when I thought Lib Dems would get over 60 seats.

Which I guess kind of proves your point about mental gymnastics!

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think you'd have to do some extreme mental gymnastics to imagine labour dropping corbyn just to satisfy jo swinson. Might as well just go into coalition and make swinson pm there and then.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ditching Corbyn is meaningless and just illustrates how weak a leader she is. Even if Labour agree which would be absurd given that they'd be the overwhelming majority of such a coalition, they'd just replace him with someone just as left wing.

Ok well this is something hypothetical but in all honesty - i wouldnt rule it out, depending on whether Labour make gains or not - If they lose seats, but the numbers of SNP, LIB DEMS, Greens, Plaid etc etc manage to tip the Anti Tory block over the line- i could see it happening. The Labour Party will get into Government despite themselves

If Labour make gains, then it is arguably difficult to see agreement on Corbyn resigning. But in fairness it is still possible

For a chance to implement some of their manifesto pledges, end austerity, and fund the NHS (all vote winning activities the next time out), i can see Corbyn reluctantly standing aside, perhaps at an agreed time during the life of the government

ancapailldorcha - i see what your saying RE dropping Corbyn and ending up with someone just as left wing - but in my opinion that is what is going to happen anyway. The problem with Corbyn isnt that he is 'too left wing' - its that at heart, he is a Brexiteer, and also weakened as leader by his supposed past views on the IRA, and Antisemitism/Palestine (neither of which i agree as being significant, but it is a problem for him). That is my honest view. And the majority of Labour is remain, regardless of Labour Leave constituencies etc

Corbyn may not be pragmatic - but Labour at large might well be

Harry Palmr

sid waddell wrote: »

Oh look, the Tories have their very own IRA:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1204326053898051585

Bit unexpected for the well known Tory party supporting Telegraph to report this, yesterday I had to scroll for about half a mile to find mention of the how well Boris Johnson's chat with a journalist went

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

At the start of the campaign I thought this was not only possible but actually likely, but that was when I thought Lib Dems would get over 60 seats.

Which I guess kind of proves your point about mental gymnastics!

I suppose if you were talking numbers like lab 220, snp 50, lib dem 60+ and putting coalition together, corbyn could easily be expendable. But i think he'd be gone due to dismal performance rather than other leaders demanding his head.

If labour do lose seats it'll be to tories so the notion that any coalition could be established with labour on less seats isnt realistic i think.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest a Labour government wouldn't hold a second referendum? Something that's in their manifesto, is widely popular amongst their MPs and activists, would be a condition for any coalition partner, and would have no downsides and only potential upsides for them?

Is that how desperate the Tory argument is becoming?

ooh, ooh, he criticised Labour, he must be a Tory :rolleyes:

Do I believe Corbyn? not really, no. If he actually came out with some form of conviction then I might, but the fact that this is conditional on him re-negotiating the deal with the EU puts this firmly in the pie in the sky bucket for me.

The logical stance for me, from either leader, would be to get the withdrawal agreement signed (which it should have been when Theresa May presented it to Westminster), negotiate the actual deal and then go back to the people and offer them either that, or a customs union.

Johnson won't do that because he is too pig headed and Corbyn can't do that because he has opposed every deal put forward so far and it would make him look like a fool.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Bit unexpected for the well known Tory party supporting Telegraph to report this, yesterday I had to scroll for about half a mile to find mention of the how well Boris Johnson's chat with a journalist went

The Conservatives are getting hammered on social media (this forum woul be a good indication of that) so they are improving their presence. I don't see anything sinister in this,

just take a look at George Monbiot and the amount he tweets and retweets. Presuming you don't think he is in any way impartial. Labour are winning the social media war spectacularly.

some reading for you on Russian Twitter bots in the 2017 election https://www.swansea.ac.uk/press-office/news-archive/2018/datainvestigationsuggestsrussianattemptstoinfluencethegeneralelection.php

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ditching Corbyn is meaningless and just illustrates how weak a leader she is.

The Lib Dems are trying to peel voters off the Tory centre. One way to do that is to attack Labour and make out that she dislikes Corbyn as much as the Tories do.

After the election that will all be water under the bridge - if there is a hung Parliament she will shut yer yap and go into talks with Labour and the SNP without preconditions.

quokula

Latest constituency polls for Kensington, Finchley and Westminster are depressing.

Just three constituencies, but I've friends living in all 3, all 3 were Labour / Con marginals, all 3 have had the LDs parachute in high profile defectors who had no chance in their original constituencies, and all 3 are now splitting the progressive vote severely so the Tories have them comfortably wrapped up.

Why do the Lib Dems do this so often? It's so self defeating.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

The Conservatives are getting hammered on social media (this forum woul be a good indication of that) so they are improving their presence. I don't see anything sinister in this,

just take a look at George Monbiot and the amount he tweets and retweets. Presuming you don't think he is in any way impartial. Labour are winning the social media war spectacularly.

some reading for you on Russian Twitter bots in the 2017 election https://www.swansea.ac.uk/press-office/news-archive/2018/datainvestigationsuggestsrussianattemptstoinfluencethegeneralelection.php

So you think someone like George Monbiot tweeting on his own personal account and taking a stand for integrity is the same as putting out hundreds of fake accounts to deliberately spread disinformation? Interesting.

The article about Russian twitter bots you link (which doesn't provide any of the supporting data or evidence which is odd for an academic report, but no more odd than the fact they admit they conducted the research in conjunction with a right leaning newspaper) is not necessarily the full story, considering that Johnson chose to suppress the actual investigation into Russian interference that should have been published before this election.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

So you think someone like George Monbiot tweeting on his own personal account and taking a stand for integrity is the same as putting out hundreds of fake accounts to deliberately spread disinformation? Interesting.

that is a perfect example though. George Monbiot tells us this is a Kremlin like army of bots, so it is believed by those who want to believe it. What the Tories are actually doing is creating a more robust official online presence. There is no suggestion of fake accounts and disinformation.

But thanks to George, we think there is, so who is spreading disinformation?

Labour has 789k followers on Twitter, the Conservatives 452k. It stands to reason Labours tweets alone get retweeted many many more times.

quokula wrote: »

The article about Russian twitter bots you link (which doesn't provide any of the supporting data or evidence which is odd for an academic report, but no more odd than the fact they admit they conducted the research in conjunction with a right leaning newspaper) is not necessarily the full story, considering that Johnson chose to suppress the actual investigation into Russian interference that should have been published before this election.

move along, nothing to see here :rolleyes:

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

that is a perfect example though. George Monbiot tells us this is a Kremlin like army of bots, so it is believed by those who want to believe it. What the Tories are actually doing is creating a more robust official online presence. There is no suggestion of fake accounts and disinformation.

But thanks to George, we think there is, so who is spreading disinformation?

The Conservatives. Remeber FactCheckUK? Labourmanifesto.co.uk?

I find Monbiot insufferable usually but he's spot on here.

CelticRambler

Infini wrote: »

at the very least the'll have to come to a C&S agreement of some kind if they want to keep the conservatives out

robinph wrote: »

surely Labour could just say "OK then, crack on and put it your deal up to a vote against remain and you can carry on being a minority government for a bit longer whilst the opposition actually control the house".

This would, in my opinion, be the best outcome for the democratic process in Britain. Johnson continues to brandish the threat of a "hung parliament" over the undecided voters, when it would in fact be the best representation of the electorate's wishes.

To have Westminster reconstituted in almost exactly the same proportions as the outgoing House would be both a fatal blow for the hard Brexiteers and a vindication of the soft Lab-LibDem-SNP alliance. It would force Johnson and the Tories to concentrate on "getting Brexit done" in a responsible way, i.e. putting a cross-party proposal back to the people - or finally accept that there isn't any kind of Brexit that can be done without considerable political and social upheaval.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Conservatives. Remeber FactCheckUK? Labourmanifesto.co.uk?

I find Monbiot insufferable usually but he's spot on here.

Or the fact that nearly 90% of tory facebook ads have been said to be untruthful according to full fact, independent fact checking website. Havent seen the comparable figure for labour. Doubt its 88% though, or even half that.

https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/thousands-of-misleading-conservative-ads-side-step-scrutiny-thanks-to-facebook-policy/

johnnyskeleton

quokula wrote: »

Latest constituency polls for Kensington, Finchley and Westminster are depressing.

Just three constituencies, but I've friends living in all 3, all 3 were Labour / Con marginals, all 3 have had the LDs parachute in high profile defectors who had no chance in their original constituencies, and all 3 are now splitting the progressive vote severely so the Tories have them comfortably wrapped up.

Why do the Lib Dems do this so often? It's so self defeating.

Do you have a link to the polls? I can see some info on Wikipedia but am not sure if that is the information you are referring to or if its accurate.

The accepted wisdom is that the Lib Dems are just as likely if not more likely to take Conservative votes than they are Labour votes. They are considered closer to the Tories than to Labour. Sam Gyimah in Kensington is a former Tory Minister after all. Labour activists have spent more time and effort attacking the Lib Dems (IMO) than they have attacking the Tories.

As to why the Lib Dems do this, do you mean why do they contest elections? Well, they are offering an alternative that is between the other two parties, and on Brexit they are doing it because themselves and the Green party are the only Remain parties in those three constituencies.

In London & Westminister constituency, each of the three polls show the Lib Dems getting 2-7 percentage points more than Labour. In Finchley its more pronounced with Labour on 18-19% and Lib Dems on 31-34%. Both are sitting Tory seats so it makes sense that the Lib Dems would contest them.

Regarding Kensington, this is currently a Labour seat and the polls are more nuanced. Yougov in Nov had Labour 30.1 and Lib Dems 27.7. The next poll (Delta) had the Lib Dems ahead by a wider margin of 33 to 27. The last December poll has a swing back to 29 Labour 26 Lib Dem.

But if the point you are essentially making is why are the Lib Dems splitting the anti-Brexit, progressive vote, and assuming for the purposes of your argument that Labour are progressive and anti-Brexit (which I do not accept, by the way), then logically a tactical vote in 2 out of the three referred constituencies should be for Lib Dems with Labour standing aside, and in the most marginal of the three constituencies, I'd say that because Labour have the current MP, then its only fair that they ask the Lib Dems to step aside.

Ultimately, your friends should realise that arguing the Lib Dems are splitting the vote and ruining Labours chances is an argument that could clearly be said in reverse that Labour are ruining Lib Dems chances. Especially in a place like London which is one of the most pro remain areas in the UK.

I'm sure if Labour gave up on London, the Lib Dems would happily stand aside in all the Northern Labour seats in exchange.