General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

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

perfect examples of why the Tories need to up their game. Both very very amateur attempts at social media and both seen through straight away.

Do you, for one minute, honestly in your heart of hearts believe that Labour don't exploit their social media presence?

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

There is no suggestion of fake accounts and disinformation.

An army of twitter accounts came out yesterday with the exact same text claiming to be a nurse and knowing that the 4 year old on oxygen lying on coats on the floor was fake news.

But it was true, and carefully checked by the local journalist who first ran it.

The army of twitter accounts are fakes, and what they were spreading is disinformation.

You are wrong.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

perfect examples of why the Tories need to up their game. Both very very amateur attempts at social media and both seen through straight away.

Do you, for one minute, honestly in your heart of hearts believe that Labour don't exploit their social media presence?

No, those are examples of outright deceit.

There is exploitation meaning using adeptness, aptitude and experience and there's exploitation referring to deceit and misinformation. The Conservatives are very much the latter.

johnnyskeleton

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.

Kier Starmer is being suggested as the sort of middle ground candidate, somewhere between the Momentum side and the old Blairite wing. Could someone like him be a compromise candidate that brings the Labour party back together? I suspect that the scenario in the Labour party is that the Momentum people feel, perhaps justly, that they have been out in the cold for so long that now that they are in the driving seat of Labour, they need their time in the sun (sorry about all the metaphors).

Jo Swinson is looking very weak at the moment, not least because she is, on one reading of it, at risk (albeit not overly likely) of losing her own Dunbartonshire seat to Amy Callaghan.

I suspect that she overplayed her hand regarding Corbyn. All she needed to do was say that as a remain party, they could not in good consciousness support a person who has stated that he is in favour of leaving the European Union. Instead, she went fully Tory talking points on it and then got caught up in the sillyness about national security, something a fluffy hippy party like the Lib Dems would do well to keep away from.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

An army of twitter accounts came out yesterday with the exact same text claiming to be a nurse and knowing that the 4 year old on oxygen lying on coats on the floor was fake news.

But it was true, and carefully checked by the local journalist who first ran it.

The army of twitter accounts are fakes, and what they were spreading is disinformation.

You are wrong.

are they conservative party users?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is exploitation meaning using adeptness, aptitude and experience and there's exploitation referring to deceit and misinformation. The Conservatives are very much the latter.

But the former is acceptable, because Labour do it?

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Kier Starmer is being suggested as the sort of middle ground candidate, somewhere between the Momentum side and the old Blairite wing. Could someone like him be a compromise candidate that brings the Labour party back together? I suspect that the scenario in the Labour party is that the Momentum people feel, perhaps justly, that they have been out in the cold for so long that now that they are in the driving seat of Labour, they need their time in the sun (sorry about all the metaphors).

Jo Swinson is looking very weak at the moment, not least because she is, on one reading of it, at risk (albeit not overly likely) of losing her own Dunbartonshire seat to Amy Callaghan.

I suspect that she overplayed her hand regarding Corbyn. All she needed to do was say that as a remain party, they could not in good consciousness support a person who has stated that he is in favour of leaving the European Union. Instead, she went fully Tory talking points on it and then got caught up in the sillyness about national security, something a fluffy hippy party like the Lib Dems would do well to keep away from.

As much as I would prefer Keir Starmer to be leader, the thing that has kept Corbyn as leader is Momentum's stranglehold on the party. I do wonder how fanatical his supporters will remain if Johnson attains a majority. Labour seem to be a broader church than the Conservatives where you can see that very few Tory MP's now support some form of Brexit whereas there is a socialist wing of the Labour party which is and has always been Eurosceptic.

Swinson was appealing when Labour were dithering and Johnson had prorogued Parliament. Now that the former has finished and the latter has been foiled, there's little reason to vote Lib Dem outside relatively few key seats. SHe's also gotten carried away with herself and made some unfortunate missteps such as appearing keen to use a nuclear weapon and voluntarily bringing up an absurd budget surplus target when this ideology is still remembered very negatively by the public.

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

But the former is acceptable, because Labour do it?

Whataboutery

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

But the former is acceptable, because Labour do it?

Did I say that?

Joe_ Public

I repeat: 88% of tory facebook ads found to be untruthful by one of the uk's leading factcheck websites.

This is all carefully calculated to spread doubt and confusion. The tories know they'll get criticism for it but it will be deflected by the media with a round of false equivalence - they're all as bad as each other, all at it etc

Not only do they tar all with their dirty brush, they get plenty to fall for their dubious ads in the first place. Its win-win. To think the tories are behind on this stuff is laughable.

quokula

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

Top of the Britain Elects Twitter, they're new polls released today.

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.

That accepted wisdom is wrong in the given constituencies - the Lib Dems have eaten into the Labour vote share and the Tory share has remained stable.

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.

I mean why do they divert significant attention and resources to what were, up until now, competitive Tory / Labour marginals with Lib Dems a distant third.

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.

Yes, that's the case now - that's the problem. These constituencies had Labour comfortably ahead previously and as the only party with the chance to take / hold these seats. But the Lib Dems chose to move their most high profile defecting MPs to these constituencies, up against lesser known / backbench Tory and Labour candidates. This has moved the polls to the point that Labour and Lib Dem are pretty much neck and neck, and the Tories are insurmountable.

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.

As I've pointed out, the reverse argument that Labour are splitting the vote doesn't apply, because the initial equilibrium state was that of a Tory Labour marginal, before the Lib Dems started pumping resources into changing this status quo to a comfortable Tory victory. Sure, going to the polls now, a Lib Dem vote makes sense in some cases, but they're so far behind the Tories that the race in those seats is already effectively over now. If the Lib Dems had quietly campaigned with local candidates instead of parachuting in high profile MPs, and if they had instead focussed more resources on actual Lib Dem marginals, Labour had the chance to win one or more of those seats.

Also, as a side effect of this, a right wing journalist for the Telegraph was being asked about tactical voting on Sky News just now. He plucked Kensington out as an example of a "typical" constituency to point out that tactical voting won't work and therefore nobody in any constituency should waste their time doing it.

Joe_ Public

Listening to ed davey on bbc. This is extraordinary. He seems to be suggesting they'll back a peoples vote after election but wont support either johnson or corbyn and wont vote for a queens speech or finance bill. So effectively he's suggesting they totter on for 6 months or more with no effective administration in place. Sounds totally bizarre.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Did I say that?

you certainly didn't answer my question, that's for sure.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As much as I would prefer Keir Starmer to be leader, the thing that has kept Corbyn as leader is Momentum's stranglehold on the party. I do wonder how fanatical his supporters will remain if Johnson attains a majority.

I'd agree with that. The perceived wisdom is that a party leader that is seen to have "lost" an election (i.e. whether the governing party loses a majority, or where the opposition have a dramatic loss in seats) should resign. I don't see that happening with Corbyn. I can see him saying "oh well, I guess the people just don't want my brand of politics" and continuing on as before. Admirable personal traits, but it's a bit against the grain of mainstream politics.

Labour seem to be a broader church than the Conservatives where you can see that very few Tory MP's now support some form of Brexit whereas there is a socialist wing of the Labour party which is and has always been Eurosceptic.

This is the crazy thing. I just don't see how Labour can style themselves as being against brexit when there are so many of them who are in favour of it, and very few who are actively against it. The Tories MPs are mostly against Brexit, but have managed to present themselves as a sort of hold your nose and do it party, on the basis that it is the will of the people. This naked and unashamed electioneering sits very well with the voters for some reason, perhaps a reflection of the "populist" times we live in.

Swinson was appealing when Labour were dithering and Johnson had prorogued Parliament. Now that the former has finished and the latter has been foiled, there's little reason to vote Lib Dem outside relatively few key seats. SHe's also gotten carried away with herself and made some unfortunate missteps such as appearing keen to use a nuclear weapon and

I agree. I like the Lib Dems as they are clear in their pro remain stance and have some other good policies like proportional representation. I also like Jo Swinson as she is enthusiastic and articulate. But she can't escape the past of Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition rule and while I don't want to be seen to play the misogynist card, talking about nuclear weapons has always been the purview of the Conservative strongman or the crusty socialist, and people find it hard to accept the views of a bubbly young woman on such an issue, and so her statements that she is in favour of the nuclear deterrent sounded hollow and insincere to conservatives and a little bit unstable to the CND types.

voluntarily bringing up an absurd budget surplus target when this ideology is still remembered very negatively by the public.

If there were honesty in politics, all politicians would say "look, governments in the western world are getting massively into debt and paying an increasing amount of our budgets servicing that debt. We need some fiscal responsibility and unfortunately that means higher taxes and lower services." But that's a real vote killer.

So I wouldn't criticise her personally for bringing it up - it shows honesty and integrity. But it played awfully, particularly in deprived areas of the Lowlands where she wants to get elected!

Britain Elects just released this tweet, promising of course for any Conservative viewer.

Let's hope that poll from yesterday was an aberration. Even if we accept it as true, and take it within the wider context of the poll of polls, the Tories still retain a 10-point lead over the Labour Party. If "15-points" is just as likely as "6-points", then an average "10-point" lead is the most probable outcome.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1204384996250836997

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

you certainly didn't answer my question, that's for sure.

Didn't think it needed spelling out but it clearly does. Misinformation is unacceptable regardless of who produces it.

liamtech

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

It can be argued both ways, as you said - Lib Dems ruining labour, and labour ruining lib dems in certain seats

Despite being a lefty, i blame Corbyn for this. He is the one, not Swinson, who ruled out co-operation in ousting Tories from certain seats. Corbyn is the man who refused to agree not to run for seats of the Tory Rebels like Dominic Grieve

In my mind, if the goal is to stop a Tory majority, thereby increasing the chances of an Anti-Tory/Anti-Brexit Alliance, then there should have been more co-operation (i forgive a lack of co-operation in scotland given neither Labour or the Lib Dems, being willing to stand aside for the Pro Indy SNP mps)

But when it comes to Wales and England - pragmatism between Labour and the Lib Dems could have swung this thing. I wont exonerate Swinson completely- she is responsible for being antagonistic to Labour

However Corbyn is ultimately responsible - and if the popular % vote is for Anti Brexit parties, but we end up with a Tory Majority -Corbyn is more culpable, for running in seats where he has not the chance of winning, and ruining these pitches for other Anti-Tory Candidates

johnnyskeleton

quokula wrote: »

I mean why do they divert significant attention and resources to what were, up until now, competitive Tory / Labour marginals with Lib Dems a distant third.

Well they're deploying their candidates in the ares where they believe they have the best chances of gaining a seat. All parties do so, to a greater or lesser extent. It should be borne in mind that while the Lib Dems only have 12-14 seats at the moment, they are running candidates in almost all constituencies and consider themselves just as much a national party as Labour or Conservatives.

Yes, that's the case now - that's the problem. These constituencies had Labour comfortably ahead previously and as the only party with the chance to take / hold these seats. But the Lib Dems chose to move their most high profile defecting MPs to these constituencies, up against lesser known / backbench Tory and Labour candidates. This has moved the polls to the point that Labour and Lib Dem are pretty much neck and neck, and the Tories are insurmountable.

Is it worth asking why Labour are failing to keep their support and failing to advance on the Tories, rather than blaming the Lib Dems? I mean, I agree that from an Irish point of view the whole first past the post system is ridiculous, but it is the system they have and to be fair to them those seats would be considered to be safe ish conservative seats for this election (notwithstanding that Kensington is currently red since 2017).

It would've been better if the parties could have agreed a grand coalition against Brexit and the Tories. But that didn't happen.

Similarly, I don't see any constituency where it would have been better to have run those candidates. The Lib Dems have to do what is best for themselves absent an agreed voting pact.

As I've pointed out, the reverse argument that Labour are splitting the vote doesn't apply, because the initial equilibrium state was that of a Tory Labour marginal, before the Lib Dems started pumping resources into changing this status quo to a comfortable Tory victory.

I think it applies all the more so, because the Lib Dems knew that Labour hadn't a chance in these constituencies and so tried to give a viable alternative to the Conservatives. But the logic that because one party is currently more popular in an area should discourage other parties from running doesn't make sense to me.

Sure, going to the polls now, a Lib Dem vote makes sense in some cases, but they're so far behind the Tories that the race in those seats is already effectively over now. If the Lib Dems had quietly campaigned with local candidates instead of parachuting in high profile MPs, and if they had instead focussed more resources on actual Lib Dem marginals, Labour had the chance to win one or more of those seats.

Maybe, but it's not too late for the Labour candidates to throw in the towel and get behind the Lib Dems. I mean, I'm only making the point that the Lib Dems owe no more to Labour than Labour do to Lib Dems.

Also, as a side effect of this, a right wing journalist for the Telegraph was being asked about tactical voting on Sky News just now. He plucked Kensington out as an example of a "typical" constituency to point out that tactical voting won't work and therefore nobody in any constituency should waste their time doing it.

Hmmm, tactical voting doesn't work because there are three main parties advocating for three different things:

Conservatives - leave on the current deal
Lib Dems - remain in the EU
Labour - have another election, the terms of which are unclear, except that a hard brexit is the only thing off the menu.

Anyone in Kensington who wants to remain should vote Lib Dem. If they want a soft Brexit, but not Johnson's Brexit they should vote Labour. If they want Johnsons Brexit, vote conservative.

johnnyskeleton

liamtech wrote: »

Despite being a lefty, i blame Corbyn for this. He is the one, not Swinson, who ruled out co-operation in ousting Tories from certain seats. Corbyn is the man who refused to agree not to run for seats of the Tory Rebels like Dominic Grieve

A plauge on both their houses, to be honest. But also, his grand plan to remain neutral on the most divisive issue of the time, and his attempts to paint himself as the "honest broker" may have seemed like a good idea in the boardroom, but has opened him up to much ridicule in the live debates and has made him seem weak and foolish.

In my mind, if the goal is to stop a Tory majority, thereby increasing the chances of an Anti-Tory/Anti-Brexit Alliance, then there should have been more co-operation (i forgive a lack of co-operation in scotland given neither Labour or the Lib Dems, being willing to stand aside for the Pro Indy SNP mps)

But when it comes to Wales and England - pragmatism between Labour and the Lib Dems could have swung this thing. I wont exonerate Swinson completely- she is responsible for being antagonistic to Labour

I'd agree with that. However, all three major UK parties have been spectacularly bad insofar as they have all put party above national interest.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Britain Elects just released this tweet, promising of course for any Conservative viewer.

Let's hope that poll from yesterday was an aberration. Even if we accept it as true, and take it within the wider context of the poll of polls, the Tories still retain a 10-point lead over the Labour Party. If "15-points" is just as likely as "6-points", then an average "10-point" lead is the most probable outcome.

To be honest, a Tory 15 point win, with 60+ seat majority is preferrable to a Tory 10 point c. 20 seat majority. A 20 seat majority puts the ERG back in the driving seat, which will just be awful.

Joe_ Public

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well they're deploying their candidates in the ares where they believe they have the best chances of gaining a seat. All parties do so, to a greater or lesser extent. It should be borne in mind that while the Lib Dems only have 12-14 seats at the moment, they are running candidates in almost all constituencies and consider themselves just as much a national party as Labour or Conservatives.



Is it worth asking why Labour are failing to keep their support and failing to advance on the Tories, rather than blaming the Lib Dems? I mean, I agree that from an Irish point of view the whole first past the post system is ridiculous, but it is the system they have and to be fair to them those seats would be considered to be safe ish conservative seats for this election (notwithstanding that Kensington is currently red since 2017).

It would've been better if the parties could have agreed a grand coalition against Brexit and the Tories. But that didn't happen.

Similarly, I don't see any constituency where it would have been better to have run those candidates. The Lib Dems have to do what is best for themselves absent an agreed voting pact.



I think it applies all the more so, because the Lib Dems knew that Labour hadn't a chance in these constituencies and so tried to give a viable alternative to the Conservatives. But the logic that because one party is currently more popular in an area should discourage other parties from running doesn't make sense to me.



Maybe, but it's not too late for the Labour candidates to throw in the towel and get behind the Lib Dems. I mean, I'm only making the point that the Lib Dems owe no more to Labour than Labour do to Lib Dems.



Hmmm, tactical voting doesn't work because there are three main parties advocating for three different things:

Conservatives - leave on the current deal
Lib Dems - remain in the EU
Labour - have another election, the terms of which are unclear, except that a hard brexit is the only thing off the menu.

Anyone in Kensington who wants to remain should vote Lib Dem. If they want a soft Brexit, but not Johnson's Brexit they should vote Labour. If they want Johnsons Brexit, vote conservative.

Dont disagree on the fundamental points, but not on the conclusion. Voting lib dem is a vote for second referendum as there is no other realistic way of it happening. So a remain voter in Kensington would, imo, need to work out which is the better option to advance that and its a tricky choice to make given the available poll figures there.

sid waddell

This is a brilliant response by Yorkshire Evening Post editor James Mitchinson to a reader who contacted him who believed the fake Tory smears about the four year old boy lying on the floor of the hospital in Leeds:

https://twitter.com/JayMitchinson/status/1204344653174181888

liamtech

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A plauge on both their houses, to be honest. But also, his grand plan to remain neutral on the most divisive issue of the time, and his attempts to paint himself as the "honest broker" may have seemed like a good idea in the boardroom, but has opened him up to much ridicule in the live debates and has made him seem weak and foolish.



I'd agree with that. However, all three major UK parties have been spectacularly bad insofar as they have all put party above national interest.

I agree but especially on the honest broker part, in relation to Corbyn's Brexit stance.

Officially it is to avoid 'doing a cameron' and ending up supporting one side, thereby being unable to execute the other, in that event. Thats the party line - stand aside let the party and the people decide

Unofficially, (and this is the part that we are in no doubt about i would guess), it is because Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer. A simple look at how he voted in relation to Maastricht, and the EU/EEC over the years tells us clearly where his priorities lie. My own view is that he wants 'his' Brexit to go ahead and he would execute it the following way (if given the chance)

• Re-open negotiations after securing another extension
• Implicitly sell the merits of a Corbyn Brexit, while negotiating, thereby sanitizing brexit - and dis-empowering the notion that there cannot be a good brexit
• Come back with the deal, which he will have to explain thoroughly to the electorate - again more sanitizing brexit, more negating remain
• Then he stands aside, fence sits, and has his referendum - safe in the knowledge that his supporter base knows which way he wants the chips to fall

It is not a good policy - im sure some will think it is, but my view is it is dangerous - especially if he is in coalition - if one of his partners pulled the plug and the Tories regained power - we are back to No Deal at that point

All academic though - i dont think he will (be allowed) to get that far

In my criticism of Corbyn previously i have gone over the fact that were it not for Brexit, Corbyn would have had such a chance at bringing proper Labour socialism back to Britain -

But with Brexit looming, and being as u said, the most divisive issue in UK politics for a generation - Corbyn is the wrong person to have in charge of Labour

quokula

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well they're deploying their candidates in the ares where they believe they have the best chances of gaining a seat. All parties do so, to a greater or lesser extent. It should be borne in mind that while the Lib Dems only have 12-14 seats at the moment, they are running candidates in almost all constituencies and consider themselves just as much a national party as Labour or Conservatives.

Are they though? I wonder if they're dealing with internal politics where they have these high profile defectors who currently hold seats where the Lib Dems stand no chance whatsoever, but they don't want to move lifelong Lib Dem people from their held and target seats, so they've dropped these people into places where the party is third place and has a slim outside chance.

Is it worth asking why Labour are failing to keep their support and failing to advance on the Tories, rather than blaming the Lib Dems? I mean, I agree that from an Irish point of view the whole first past the post system is ridiculous, but it is the system they have and to be fair to them those seats would be considered to be safe ish conservative seats for this election (notwithstanding that Kensington is currently red since 2017).

It would've been better if the parties could have agreed a grand coalition against Brexit and the Tories. But that didn't happen.

Similarly, I don't see any constituency where it would have been better to have run those candidates. The Lib Dems have to do what is best for themselves absent an agreed voting pact.

I think the fact that the Lib Dems are mainly taking Labour voters is because of the Brexit divide. Historically it's always been the case that voters float between Lib Dem and Labour far more than the hard divide between the more progressive parties of Lib/Lab/SNP/Greens and the Conservatives/UKIP/Brexit.

I think it applies all the more so, because the Lib Dems knew that Labour hadn't a chance in these constituencies and so tried to give a viable alternative to the Conservatives. But the logic that because one party is currently more popular in an area should discourage other parties from running doesn't make sense to me.

Labour didn't not stand a chance in those seats - it held one of them and was a close second in two others. It doesn't stand a chance now that the Lib Dems have devoted a lot of resources to them. But neither do the Lib Dems, who never did.

Maybe, but it's not too late for the Labour candidates to throw in the towel and get behind the Lib Dems. I mean, I'm only making the point that the Lib Dems owe no more to Labour than Labour do to Lib Dems.

It's way too late for that, and where both parties are hovering around 25% each there's no chance of tactical votes in the quantity needed. On the other hand, promoting tactical voting did make sense before the Libs started focussing on these constituencies, when Labour held 42%/43%/38% in these three seats and the Libs held 10%/6%/11%

Hmmm, tactical voting doesn't work because there are three main parties advocating for three different things:

Conservatives - leave on the current deal
Lib Dems - remain in the EU
Labour - have another election, the terms of which are unclear, except that a hard brexit is the only thing off the menu.

Anyone in Kensington who wants to remain should vote Lib Dem. If they want a soft Brexit, but not Johnson's Brexit they should vote Labour. If they want Johnsons Brexit, vote conservative.

Labour are campaigning on a second referendum, which is literally the only viable way to stop Brexit. Anyone who wants to remain needs to vote Labour.

Again it might seem to make sense in Ireland, but it's hard to overstate how repulsive the idea of cancelling Brexit without going back to the electorate is in the UK, even among remainers. It would be seen as a democratic outrage, particularly as no government, even one with a large majority, could conceivably receive as many votes as Brexit did in the referendum. You can disagree with that intellectually, but the weight of public opinion means it would be completely untenable, and a government that tried to do it would be mauled at the next election and most likely replaced by a hard right majority who would be free to claim the mandate from the referendum still stands and to immediately go for no deal.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

Again it might seem to make sense in Ireland, but it's hard to overstate how repulsive the idea of cancelling Brexit without going back to the electorate is in the UK, even among remainers. It would be seen as a democratic outrage, particularly as no government, even one with a large majority, could conceivably receive as many votes as Brexit did in the referendum.

Labour's proposal doesn't end the debate at all.

Labour are going to rig the second referendum:

• Giving 16/17 year old's the vote; EU nationals etc.
• Having a "Leave" option that is closer to Remain than Leave.

That option, in the eyes of Leave voters - of a Remain versus a version of Remain - and with a rigged franchise, will be seen as just as big a betrayal as what the Lib Dems have proposed. It's Remain through the backdoor.

Labour love to say, "we didn't know what form of Leave we voted for" - yet decide to put Remain on the ballot paper.

If there is any semblence of decency, the second vote would respect the original referendum by offering Labour's deal versus WTO Brexit. If Labour proposed that, then they'd probably have won this General Election.

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'd agree with that. The perceived wisdom is that a party leader that is seen to have "lost" an election (i.e. whether the governing party loses a majority, or where the opposition have a dramatic loss in seats) should resign. I don't see that happening with Corbyn. I can see him saying "oh well, I guess the people just don't want my brand of politics" and continuing on as before. Admirable personal traits, but it's a bit against the grain of mainstream politics.

To be honest, I'd say that even if he does step down, he will be replaced by someone young of acceptable ideological purity as judged by the party membership.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is the crazy thing. I just don't see how Labour can style themselves as being against brexit when there are so many of them who are in favour of it, and very few who are actively against it. The Tories MPs are mostly against Brexit, but have managed to present themselves as a sort of hold your nose and do it party, on the basis that it is the will of the people. This naked and unashamed electioneering sits very well with the voters for some reason, perhaps a reflection of the "populist" times we live in.

It's a classic disconnect. The younger membership, cosmopolitan areas and the MP's are overwhelmingly against it. It's areas like the so-called "Red Wall" that are in favor of it hence Corbyn's pitiful fence sitting. MEP's who have appeared on the Remainiacs podcast like Seb Dance have reported being told on the doorstep that neither Remainers nor Brexiters trust Corbyn so he just ended up with the worst of both worlds.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I agree. I like the Lib Dems as they are clear in their pro remain stance and have some other good policies like proportional representation. I also like Jo Swinson as she is enthusiastic and articulate. But she can't escape the past of Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition rule and while I don't want to be seen to play the misogynist card, talking about nuclear weapons has always been the purview of the Conservative strongman or the crusty socialist, and people find it hard to accept the views of a bubbly young woman on such an issue, and so her statements that she is in favour of the nuclear deterrent sounded hollow and insincere to conservatives and a little bit unstable to the CND types.

I like Swinson as well despite the frustrating gaffes she's made. Nobody's perfect but bringing up a budget surplus is a bit like Nick Clegg saying "Remember what we said about tuition fees...". I think there is a whiff of sexism as well given how she was excluded from the main leaders' debate on ITV despite her party having been in government in the past decade.

Ultimately, we need to bin FPTP but no party will remove an advantage that it enjoys voluntarily.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If there were honesty in politics, all politicians would say "look, governments in the western world are getting massively into debt and paying an increasing amount of our budgets servicing that debt. We need some fiscal responsibility and unfortunately that means higher taxes and lower services." But that's a real vote killer.

So I wouldn't criticise her personally for bringing it up - it shows honesty and integrity. But it played awfully, particularly in deprived areas of the Lowlands where she wants to get elected!

I'd like to see them go further. People smoke, drink and eat crap excessively and then expect free healthcare at the point of use. They live longer and require ever more expensive pensions. They want top notch schooling and Universities for their kids. All of these public services need to be paid for and I think that this means increased taxation. The only party anywhere near delivering these unwelcome truths has been the Liberal Democrats.

I think that it's more the way she did as it reminds the public of the taint of having governed with the Conservatives. There's no magic remedy for this but she's not quite savvy enough to make a sound counterargument. Apologising was a good idea and to her credit IMO.

brickster69

Deleted User wrote: »

Labour's proposal doesn't end the debate at all.

Labour are going to rig the second referendum:

• Giving 16/17 year old's the vote; EU nationals etc.
• Having a "Leave" option that is closer to Remain than Leave.

That option, in the eyes of Leave voters - of a Remain versus a version of Remain - and with a rigged franchise, will be seen as just as big a betrayal as what the Lib Dems have proposed. It's Remain through the backdoor.

Labour love to say, "we didn't know what form of Leave we voted for" - yet decide to put Remain on the ballot paper.

If there is any semblence of decency, the second vote would respect the original referendum by offering Labour's deal versus WTO Brexit. If Labour proposed that, then they'd probably have won this General Election.

I know, it's like Leave beat remain in the semi final of the FA cup and leave get knocked out and remain go onto the final.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

Labour's proposal doesn't end the debate at all.

Labour are going to rig the second referendum:

• Giving 16/17 year old's the vote; EU nationals etc.
• Having a "Leave" option that is closer to Remain than Leave.

That option, in the eyes of Leave voters - of a Remain versus a version of Remain - and with a rigged franchise, will be seen as just as big a betrayal as what the Lib Dems have proposed. It's Remain through the backdoor.

Labour love to say, "we didn't know what form of Leave we voted for" - yet decide to put Remain on the ballot paper.

If there is any semblence of decency, the second vote would respect the original referendum by offering Labour's deal versus WTO Brexit. If Labour proposed that, then they'd probably have won this General Election.

Changing the vote age to 16 isn't rigging, no more than when it got changed from 21 to 18 was rigging.
Who can vote (EU Nationals etc) is slightly dodgier. A good constitution to cater for all this might have been a good idea at some stage.

As for the choices, surely your suggestion of WTO Brexit v Remain would have the same problems. Some Leavers would point out that the absence of (in their opinion) a sensible managed Brexit option on the ballot paper is biasing the process towards Remain.

robinph

brickster69 wrote: »

I know, it's like Leave beat remain in the semi final of the FA cup and leave get knocked out and remain go onto the final.

No, it's like Leave got through on default as they didn't field a team in the semi final (still no idea what leave means) and as Remain were kicking the ball around the pitch on their own for 90 minutes they messed up and kicked the ball in the wrong net.

Deleted User wrote: »

Labour's proposal doesn't end the debate at all.

Labour are going to rig the second referendum:

• Giving 16/17 year old's the vote; EU nationals etc.
• Having a "Leave" option that is closer to Remain than Leave.

That option, in the eyes of Leave voters - of a Remain versus a version of Remain - and with a rigged franchise, will be seen as just as big a betrayal as what the Lib Dems have proposed. It's Remain through the backdoor.

Labour love to say, "we didn't know what form of Leave we voted for" - yet decide to put Remain on the ballot paper.

If there is any semblence of decency, the second vote would respect the original referendum by offering Labour's deal versus WTO Brexit. If Labour proposed that, then they'd probably have won this General Election.

How is giving more people a chance to engage with the democratic vote on the future of their country rigging things? Unless you know that Leave is a stupid idea that should never win then why are you worried about a 2nd referendum? If it's such a great thing then stand behind it and put it to the public.
If you have such a great idea of what the fantastic Leave deal should look like then put it forward and negotiate it with the EU and then put it to the people to decide.

johnnyskeleton

liamtech wrote: »

My own view is that he wants 'his' Brexit to go ahead and he would execute it the following way (if given the chance)

• Re-open negotiations after securing another extension
  
• Implicitly sell the merits of a Corbyn Brexit, while negotiating, thereby sanitizing brexit - and dis-empowering the notion that there cannot be a good brexit
• Come back with the deal, which he will have to explain thoroughly to the electorate - again more sanitizing brexit, more negating remain
• Then he stands aside, fence sits, and has his referendum - safe in the knowledge that his supporter base knows which way he wants the chips to fall

This is the thing. What is a Corbyn Brexit? We really don't know. Labour Manifesto talks about having access to the Single Market and a new Customs Union (as though the EU will change their entire system to suit the British, or give them an equal say in Customs policy as the whole 27 EU does), Labour six tests say that Brexit has to be better than remain, which I don't think anyone believes is possible.

One reading of Corbyn Brexit is that they have effectively full EU membership but without state aid rules. The EU has made it clear that State Aid does not prevent renationalisation of rail, nor does it prevent national infrastructural or sanitation projects such as water etc. So either his objection is theoretical or based on a mistaken view of State Aid rules, or he wants the UK government to take part ownership of all large companies or something radical like that. There is no way in which this is consistent with Single Market or Customs Union rules.

I mean, if he would just say "This is what I want", then at least we could discuss it, but he won't, because as soon as the bird flys out of the cage it will be criticised and derided.

Leaving all that aside, most forms of Brexit proposed by Labour are likely to involve the softest possible Brexit, or Brexit in name only. There will be absolute fury in the UK if they are asked to choose between BRINO or remain. It's entirely unworkable when held up to scrutiny.

What's even more baffling is that, as far as I understand, most of the soft Brexiteers are small c conservatives. The hard brexit types are typically extreme right wing, extreme left wing, or angry protest voters who have been told that their Northern town has been left behind by the EU. None of these people would be happy with Corbyn's Brexit, unless it was a hard left Brexit which would appeal to the tiny amount of Lexiteers, but to no one else.

In my criticism of Corbyn previously i have gone over the fact that were it not for Brexit, Corbyn would have had such a chance at bringing proper Labour socialism back to Britain -

I'd agree. I sometimes wonder what a post Brexit socialist UK would look like. If it works well, Ireland could emulate it. However, if it doesn't work, we could learn from their mistakes.