General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Sir Oxman

hotmail.com wrote: »

That new poll makes Thursday's viewing much more interesting now.

I've ordered the matchsticks for the eyes.

Sir Oxman

markodaly wrote: »

All to play for, it appears the numbers are tightening. We could have a good overall majority for the Tories or another hung parliament.
Either way, this will be Corbyn's last as its impossible for him to become PM without a mega coalition.

If the Tories fail to get that majority, the knvies could come out for Boris.

I think its 2/1 for the Tories to get that majority, which is fair enough odds. They are the favourits but walking that tightrope.

Hard one to call personally, I dont want the Boris type of Brexit, but do we really need years and years more of uncertainty in the Irish economy and border region? Would be nice if they cancelled the whole thing, but we are far too gone for that to happen.

I simply do not trust him or his party not to no deal by Dec 2020.

Professor Moriarty

markodaly wrote: »

All to play for, it appears the numbers are tightening. We could have a good overall majority for the Tories or another hung parliament.
Either way, this will be Corbyn's last as its impossible for him to become PM without a mega coalition.

If the Tories fail to get that majority, the knvies could come out for Boris.

I think its 2/1 for the Tories to get that majority, which is fair enough odds. They are the favourits but walking that tightrope.

Hard one to call personally, I dont want the Boris type of Brexit, but do we really need years and years more of uncertainty in the Irish economy and border region? Would be nice if they cancelled the whole thing, but we are far too gone for that to happen.

No, they're 1/3. Some bookies have them at 2/5.

hometruths

Akrasia wrote: »

There are different levels of deception and it’s unwise to not draw a proper distinction.

During the week Corbyn was being accused of being a liar because he was given a gotcha question about watching the queens speech on Christmas Day by the same person who defended Johnson lying to that same queen about his reason for shutting down the Sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom

Did Corbyn lie about watching the queens speech? Probably, is that comparable to what Johnson did? Absolutely not, Johnson takes deception to a whole other level

The point I have been making about misleading adverts in the last few posts is not really about the different levels of deception and who is better or worse in this case (though fwiw I agree completely with the distinction you make above between Corbyn and Johnson)

Take a minute and forget all about the distinction between Tories/Labour and Johnson/Corbyn and the rampant confirmation biases associated with both of them and ask yourself would you believe someone who said to you:

I have discovered a political party that you can believe every word they say in their campaign adverts and manifesto etc. In fact they are so honest, not only do they not lie, they would never even be misleading. Never. 0%.

If someone said that to me I'd think they were either deluded or dishonest. But I maybe I am too much of a cynic!

4068ac1elhodqr

JC has shortened for somewhat again, @4.5 to be the next PM at formation (perhaps as a Lab minority).

If this occurs will the queen be too depressed to perform the usual xmassy speech (considering also Andy's status),
and ask for MrsBrownsBoys to play out instead, for a cheer up of a annus horribilis.

ArmaniJeanss

beggars_bush wrote: »

How are the constituencies decided?

They have a Boundary Commission similar to ours.
It's quite controversial as it has tried to keep communities/villages etc as one seat but this has led to large inequalities.
The current boundaries gives Labour a small advantage, there are lots of Labour seats with an electorate of ~60K (often in urban areas with low turnout).
And the biggest constituencies with 90K+ (Isle of Wight, and Cambridgeshre) are safe Tory.
So a lot of wasted Tory votes there, and Labour votes counting double.
It balances out a little elsewhere but it's generally estimated that Labour can get equal seats with around 2% less votes.

A Bill on new equal-sized constituencies is something that's in the Tory manifesto, and an overall reduction to 600 seats.

If you sort the constituencies by electorate size on this link you get an idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies#England

Joe_ Public

There you are on newsnight. They briefly mention the child sleeping on the floor in the hospital, then talk a bit on Matt Hancock and the tory lies before seguing into the main event: a discussion on how they're all at it. Going back decades all politicians lie, they've always lied so there's nothing new here. Just the same old.

Only Paul Mason tried manfully to put it all into context saying this is all part of a new phase we've entered where we're so in danger of normalizing lying that it becomes harder and harder to distinguish it from truth. You can lie away with impunity now knowing that not just you but your opponents too will bear the brunt of the anger towards it.

But main point is: newsnight wasnt discussing the nhs tonight. It was talking about lying and not just tory lying but all of them because they're all at it.

Harry Palmr

I'm glad they are discussing fake news though.

Joe_ Public

One of kirsty warke's questions was: does it matter that politicians lie during campaigns? Basically they've always lied so we shouldnt believe all they say.

That's fair enough, people might actually agree with that, but you have to remember this discussion was provoked by a senior tory figure or figures who falsely claimed a labour activist had assaulted a tory politician. As somebody said, if there hadnt been cctv footage to expose that lie, what potential consequences might there have been for that wrongly accused man?

Imo that shouldn't just be casually swept aside by deflecting to "does everybody do it?" At a minimum they should be calling those senior sources out and making them accountable for their lies and perhaps making kuennsberg appear to account for her role. Lot to ask for there, admittedly!

quokula

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

They have a Boundary Commission similar to ours.
It's quite controversial as it has tried to keep communities/villages etc as one seat but this has led to large inequalities.
The current boundaries gives Labour a small advantage, there are lots of Labour seats with an electorate of ~60K (often in urban areas with low turnout).
And the biggest constituencies with 90K+ (Isle of Wight, and Cambridgeshre) are safe Tory.
So a lot of wasted Tory votes there, and Labour votes counting double.
It balances out a little elsewhere but it's generally estimated that Labour can get equal seats with around 2% less votes.

A Bill on new equal-sized constituencies is something that's in the Tory manifesto, and an overall reduction to 600 seats.

If you sort the constituencies by electorate size on this link you get an idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies#England

It hasn't actually played out like that in recent elections though.



In the past it favoured Labour, but changing demographics means that is no longer the case. In 2017 the Tories got one seat for every 43 thousand votes and Labour got one seat for every 49.5 thousand votes. The difference was similar in 2015.

The boundary changes they're planning will tip the balance even more in their direction.

The big winners though are the SNP (for obvious reasons) and the big losers are the Lib Dems and all small parties, which is more to do with FPTP being not fit for purpose than constituency boundaries.

droidus

Deleted User wrote: »

This has to be the most ludicrous part of this General Election.

Who cares whether Corbyn watches the Queen's Speech? Let's say he did. So what!?

Let's say he was honest. So what!?

There are many things to condemn Corbyn over. This is not one of them.

It's such an irrelevant, almost psychotically-pedantic point to comb over that even I, as a staunch anti-Corbyn person, cannot understand why such a massive drama is constructed out of something so completely irrelevant.

He mentioned in the interview that he visits homeless shelters on Christmas day instead. Sounds fanciful but apparently he did it last year and nobody found out until the shelter publicly thanked him.

ancapailldorcha

YouGov's final MRP is out. It shows a reduced Conservative majority and includes the possibility of a hung Paliament within the margin of error:

https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1204522061357617152

Strazdas

Akrasia wrote: »

Stormy weather forecast for Thursday could depress retired voters who may decide to not leave the house on Thursday while younger and working voters will be out shopping before Christmas

The forecast is definitely bad - heavy rain and cold weather for much of the UK.

I notice btw that Farage predicted a low turnout to Sophy Ridge on Sunday (with nothing to do with the weather).

droidus

The phone call is coming from inside the house.

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1204535324103364608

quokula

droidus wrote: »

The phone call is coming from inside the house.

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1204535324103364608

I'll be amazed if that comes to anything.

Rebelbrowser

quokula wrote: »

I'll be amazed if that comes to anything.

Yup, that's 3 and a half minutes of my life Im never getting back again.....

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not at all.

People understand that Corbyn is not a pro-Monarchist. And that's absolutely fine. Neither am I, and nor should it be a reason to dismiss his premiership.

Again, it's a total non-point.

If anti-Corbyn voters cite this as their sole reason for opposing a Corbyn regime in the country, as opposed to a Johnson Administration, that is a sad reflection upon them and not as Corbyn as a leader.

And I, yet again, voice that as someone who, generally speaking, opposes the kind of politics that Corbyn stands for.

It’s not about positions at all. It’s about equivalence. If all politicians are perceived as liars, then lying is neutralized. If your incumbent candidate is a known liar, the best way to neutralize that negative trait is to make your opponent also be seen as a liar.

If nobody can be trusted than you might as well stick with the devil you know....

Everyone lies sometimes, all of us, but only a tiny percentage of people are pathological liars. If you’re the proponent of a pathological liar, you want to highlight ordinary people as liars too. It distracts from the pathology

Akrasia

schmittel wrote: »

The point I have been making about misleading adverts in the last few posts is not really about the different levels of deception and who is better or worse in this case (though fwiw I agree completely with the distinction you make above between Corbyn and Johnson)

Take a minute and forget all about the distinction between Tories/Labour and Johnson/Corbyn and the rampant confirmation biases associated with both of them and ask yourself would you believe someone who said to you:

I have discovered a political party that you can believe every word they say in their campaign adverts and manifesto etc. In fact they are so honest, not only do they not lie, they would never even be misleading. Never. 0%.

If someone said that to me I'd think they were either deluded or dishonest. But I maybe I am too much of a cynic!

You’re perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately Elections are not won on appealing to reasonable people. It’s the swingers who win elections and they’re looking for any excuse to believe what they’ve been programmed into believing despite their own self interest a lot of the time. It takes careful nudges to swing them, not reasonable arguments

Letwin_Larry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

YouGov's final MRP is out. It shows a reduced Conservative majority and includes the possibility of a hung Paliament within the margin of error:

https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1204522061357617152

last week i felt Boris had it in the bag, but imo the boy lying on the hospital floor has done the Tories big damage.

not unlike that pic of the refugee kid washed up on the Med beach, which deeply affected many people.

ancapailldorcha

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

last week i felt Boris had it in the bag, but imo the boy lying on the hospital floor has done the Tories big damage.

not unlike that pic of the refugee kid washed up on the Med beach, which deeply affected many people.

As much as I detest the Conservative party, I have to point out that it's more the way that he's mishandled it IMO. Refusing to look at the picture and pocketing the reporter's phone was a mistake IMO.

Not nearly as bad as the London Bridge attack where he just saw opportunity instead of tragedy. He is unfit to be Prime Minister.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

I have discovered a political party that you can believe every word they say in their campaign adverts and manifesto etc. In fact they are so honest, not only do they not lie, they would never even be misleading. Never. 0%.

Nobody was saying that.

The report simply stated that First Draft, a non partisan international organisation who study this kind of stuff at elections in many different countries, went through every single facebook ad that was commissioned by every major political party over a four day period last week, which is data that Facebook make publicly available.

The statements in those ads were then checked with what the fact checking agency Full Fact had said about them, who are generally respected.

88% of Tory ads contained statements that Full Fact had deemed misleading. No Labour ads did. That's just the facts of the study.

They didn't say Labour would never ever mislead, they didn't say anything about the manifesto, they just conducted a study and found a result. The methodology was very straightforward, the data is all publicly available and nobody has brought forward any evidence disputing it, so I don't understand why it's so hard to accept.

quokula

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

last week i felt Boris had it in the bag, but imo the boy lying on the hospital floor has done the Tories big damage.

not unlike that pic of the refugee kid washed up on the Med beach, which deeply affected many people.

Labour made a tactical error talking about possible damage a US trade deal could do to the NHS, when all they had to do was highlight the state the NHS is already in now. Looks like that message is starting to get through.

Rjd2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As much as I detest the Conservative party, I have to point out that it's more the way that he's mishandled it IMO. Refusing to look at the picture and pocketing the reporter's phone was a mistake IMO.

Not nearly as bad as the London Bridge attack where he just saw opportunity instead of tragedy. He is unfit to be Prime Minister.

I spoke to an Aussie about this who would be very much to the left and losthes Scott Morrison but he made the point Scott actually is a pretty shrewd street politician who would have nipped this story in the bud. Heck even Gove or Hunt would have just said

"that's not good enough, I will try and get in contact with the parents ASAP"

And that would have been that.

I suppose the positive for Johnson tonight its still a decent majority forecast and it should be a kick up the arse for Tories who thought this was a foregone conclusion.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

Nobody was saying that.

The report simply stated that First Draft, a non partisan international organisation who study this kind of stuff at elections in many different countries, went through every single facebook ad that was commissioned by every major political party over a four day period last week, which is data that Facebook make publicly available.

The statements in those ads were then checked with what the fact checking agency Full Fact had said about them, who are generally respected.

88% of Tory ads contained statements that Full Fact had deemed misleading. No Labour ads did. That's just the facts of the study.

They didn't say Labour would never ever mislead, they didn't say anything about the manifesto, they just conducted a study and found a result. The methodology was very straightforward, the data is all publicly available and nobody has brought forward any evidence disputing it, so I don't understand why it's so hard to accept.

The inference of your posts from the off repeatedly was that this study showed that 88% of all Tory ads were misleading whilst no labour ads were:

Again, the BBC article was completely clear that a separate in depth analysis of thousands of ads found that 88% of the Conservative’s were misleading and 0% of Labour’s were.

At least you’re now acknowledging that it was only a four day period.

It seems the figures also relate to ads served - i.e views. So the figure of 5952 ads is actually ad views, including :

Not every ad includes the misleading claim directly in its image or caption. At least 54% (3,646) of the total ads served link to a webpage carrying the misleading claims.

So they did not mention the manifesto explicitly, but a lot of these ads including Labours link to relevant Pages of their manifesto. Eg a Labour ad highlighting that 95% wont see any increase in taxes which Full Fact have said is a bit dubious.
And the average families thing with the rail card etc
And the child care costs.
And a few more.

So if one Labour ad ran in those 4 days linking to a webpage in which one of their policies that Fullfact queried the costings on is mentioned that qualifies on the same criteria they flagged the Tory ads.

Labour were spending more on Facebook ads during this period - see the data on Twitter from Who Targets Me.

It would not take many views to get on a par with the Tory numbers.

It would take one single view to get over 0%.

I get that you disagree with me and see no problem with this but do you at least understand why I find it Difficult to believe?

Melanchthon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not nearly as bad as the London Bridge attack where he just saw opportunity instead of tragedy. He is unfit to be Prime Minister.

That's blinkered bull, Sadiq Khan politicizes the incident before Boris Johnson did.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/london-bridge-tory-cuts-legal-20994888

Check the times and dates of the political responses.

Is Sadiq Khan unfit too or is it simply, it's fine when Labour politicians do it because they are good, when the Conservatives do the same thing though that's unacceptable

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fully entitled to that view.

I am intimately aware of what the CU/SM is now, and was 3.5-years ago, and I would still opt to Brexit.

In fact, the more I discovered about the CU/SM, the more I wanted to Brexit.
Far from "destroying the UK", the UK has returned to the nation-state which is the same as what Canada is, what Singapore is, what Japan is, and what New Zealand is.

Yet they are not "destroyed countries" by virtue of being a "nation-state".

Once you take hyperbole out of the equation and hysteria out of the argument, you find that the UK is not abandoning Europe, but simply pursuing her global ambitions on the world stage.

That's the vision that I and other Brexiteers hold to, no matter how many times people call us stupid, ill-informed, imperialist-nostalgia seeking, and generally racist and in denial about that fact.

You constantly used the term 'nation-state' as something for the UK to aspire to but you don't seem to actually know what it means.

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

A sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent.

Only 1 of the 4 countries you listed could realistically be considered a nation-state, Japan.

Canada is not a nation-state, Canada is a multi-ethnic and multicultural confederation. It is officially bilingual, with only 56% of people speaking English as their first language. Less than a third of the population consider themselves ethnically Canadian.

Singapore is not a nation-state, it is a multi-ethnic and multicultural city-state made up of a mix of primarily Chinese, Malays and Indians, and there are 4 official languages in the state. Despite only 15% of the population being Malay they are recognised as the indigenous population.

New Zealand is not a nation-state. The largest ethnic group in the country, European, only comprises 74% of the population. The people of European descent obviously coming from various countries all over Europe. The indigenous Maori population is 15% and is currently growing faster than the European population.

The United Kingdom is not a nation-state. It is a union of 4 culturally distinct entities; England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

88% of Tory ads contained statements that Full Fact had deemed misleading. No Labour ads did. That's just the facts of the study.

They didn't say Labour would never ever mislead, they didn't say anything about the manifesto, they just conducted a study and found a result. The methodology was very straightforward, the data is all publicly available and nobody has brought forward any evidence disputing it, so I don't understand why it's so hard to accept.

Labour ran this ad starting on 3rd December
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=IE&impression_search_field=has_impressions_lifetime&id=549835872525407&view_all_page_id=25749647410

With this picture:


As noted above First Draft deemed an ad misleading if the misleading claim was to be found in the linked content rather than the ad itself:

Not every ad includes the misleading claim directly in its image or caption. At least 54% (3,646) of the total ads served link to a webpage carrying the misleading claims.

This ad links to this page: https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/tackle-poverty-and-inequality/

Which includes this statement:

Under the Tories, 400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty

Full Facts fact check on Labour's manifesto - https://fullfact.org/election-2019/labour-manifesto-2019/

Which includes this statement:

Labour also says that "400,000 pensioners have been pushed into poverty". This isn’t accurate according to the SMC—which seems to have been Labour’s source for its figures on overall and in-work poverty. The SMC estimates that pensioner poverty has not significantly changed at all since 2010.

First Drafts rigorous analysis is bogus. It is fake news.

Letwin_Larry

spoke with some family and friends in Old Blighty last evening. some of them have always been Lab, and will be voting such. the others who were 'swingers' so to speak have moved back to Lab.
my sis who's a nurse feels the NHS will go from bad to worse under the Tories. her husband who is a closet racist is voting Tory.

good lord if we have a Hung Parliament, it'll be beyond a joke and more of a Kafaesque nightmarish scenario.

robinph

The Tory ad spend is kicking off today on Facebook, but being done through third parties as far as I can tell. Just on my first scroll through the new feed this morning and a couple of ads attacking Corbyn appeared, clearly political, clearly from the Tory party, listed as sponsored by Mrs someone, or Mr someone. Presumably that gets around any political ad restrictions Facebook have by it not being done by the party themselves.

Edit: It's every third fecking item on my news feed. Just been reporting them as fake news being the only option that you can select. Guess if they are wasting their money on me seeing as my postal vote went in already then that is a good thing though.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

spoke with some family and friends in Old Blighty last evening. some of them have always been Lab, and will be voting such. the others who were 'swingers' so to speak have moved back to Lab.
my sis who's a nurse feels the NHS will go from bad to worse under the Tories. her husband who is a closet racist is voting Tory.

good lord if we have a Hung Parliament, it'll be beyond a joke and more of a Kafaesque nightmarish scenario.

Think you might get some surprises in this election, but an overall Tory majority.

Home and hosed.