General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Joe_ Public

Just looking at that mrp polling, if its accurate its showing johnson with an 8 point lead in uxbridge. That suggests he'll win but not with any great thumping majority. Last time he had 5k majority with nearly 11 point lead so gap should be closer on those figures. Lib dems on 9% there so if that could be squeezed a bit more, you never know.

robinph

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Just looking at that mrp polling, if its accurate its showing johnson with an 8 point lead in uxbridge. That suggests he'll win but not with any great thumping majority. Last time he had 5k majority with nearly 11 point lead so gap should be closer on those figures. Lib dems on 9% there so if that could be squeezed a bit more, you never know.

Could do with someone to go along and donate the £500 deposit each to Lord BucketHead, Count BinFace and all the other minor parties in that constituency and get them to all stand aside and get behind the one Labour candidate.

Lord BucketHead etc would be losing their deposits anyway so it's a win for them as they get their cash back, but the combined few hundred votes they all get could make the difference.

ancapailldorcha

Melanchthon wrote: »

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

Nonsense. I'm not checking your argument for you by the way.

People will want to know why this happened. It's perfectly reasonable for Khan to apportion blame to the Tories when it is richly deserved. You can't impose austerity and then wonder why public services deteriorate.

I have no idea where this weird nonsense idea that you can only support one party and hate the other comes from. It's just reductive and bad faith debate in my opinion.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

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:



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

Which includes this statement:


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

Which includes this statement:


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

You seem to have omitted the second half of Full Fact's statement on that pension claim which says:

But the government’s data on pensioner poverty does show an increase of about 400,000 between 2009/10 and 2017/18, using a measure of relative low income.

I think that falls firmly in the difference between "disputed" and "misleading" mentioned previously.

This sort of thing is how we end up with things like Brexit. Experts do research, produce mountains of data and come to a conclusion based solely on the data, but someone's "gut" tells them that the experts are wrong and they go searching desperately for a way to validate their existing biases rather than accept the data i front of them.

Harry Palmr

Boris Johnson having a "Boris morning" so far, the Tories really are terrible when ambushed
by the media, this hit and run approach seems to have become the default as he won't submit to a proper interview.

He went to hide in a walk in fridge.

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1204653142270468097

Joe_ Public

robinph wrote: »

Could do with someone to go along and donate the £500 deposit each to Lord BucketHead, Count BinFace and all the other minor parties in that constituency and get them to all stand aside and get behind the one Labour candidate.

Lord BucketHead etc would be losing their deposits anyway so it's a win for them as they get their cash back, but the combined few hundred votes they all get could make the difference.

Their names will still be on the ballot sheet anyway so too late in the day for candidates to be stepping down. It'd be good just even to see a few headlines about johnson in a sweat, even if reality turns out to be different. Anyone voting lib dem there who is still prioritising a second referendum needs to have a long think about it imo.

Harry Palmr

Speaking on not stepping down the SNP will be retuning an Anti-Semite named Neale Hanvey as it was "too late" to stop him officially but what's notable is that he is flying very much under the SNP flag with backing at local level by party members.

quokula

robinph wrote: »

Could do with someone to go along and donate the £500 deposit each to Lord BucketHead, Count BinFace and all the other minor parties in that constituency and get them to all stand aside and get behind the one Labour candidate.

Lord BucketHead etc would be losing their deposits anyway so it's a win for them as they get their cash back, but the combined few hundred votes they all get could make the difference.

Once the ballot has been confirmed this sort of thing doesn't matter, there is no way to remove candidates. For bigger parties there's the potential to redirect campaign funding or whatever to move the numbers a bit, but if somebody's going to waste their vote on Lord Buckethead there's not much that can be done at this stage.

Zubeneschamali

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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

The only thing worse than a hung Parliament would be a Tory majority.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

You seem to have omitted the second half of Full Fact's statement on that pension claim which says:



I think that falls firmly in the difference between "disputed" and "misleading" mentioned previously.

This sort of thing is how we end up with things like Brexit. Experts do research, produce mountains of data and come to a conclusion based solely on the data, but someone's "gut" tells them that the experts are wrong and they go searching desperately for a way to validate their existing biases rather than accept the data i front of them.

First Draft did not make any distinction - if Full Fact questioned a claim, First Draft deemed it misleading for the purposes of this 'analysis'. And one of the criteria Full Fact used to query Tory claims was that they are conveniently using different data sources to suit their claims - like using SMC for overall and in-work poverty statistics and government data for pensioner poverty stats.

The supposedly clear cut distinction between disputed and misleading was mentioned by you, and it came across rather as an attempt to validate an existing bias tbh.

Which bias do you think I am trying to validate?

We're told that we end up with Brexit because people believe everything they read on the internet, and should not be so easily duped.

And we're told that we end up with Brexit because someones gut tells them not to believe everything on they read on internet.

Personally I think we'll end up with Brexit because of people's inability and refusal to admit that their starting position was wrong, no matter what the evidence.

pixelburp

Boris Johnson "delivering milk rounds"?

Good god who in this day & age falls for those obvious stunts? I'd have thought we're so far past this facade of "oh, look at him there rolling up his sleeves". Sure, they all do it - though Johnson has ploughed a particularly eccentric line throughout his career - but I'm genuinely flummoxed how such transparent tokenism gains any traction with voters. You see a little bit of it over here with the occasional pulled pint, but I don't think our TDs indulge in such obvious, patronising "lord of the manor turns a few sods" to the same extent.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Boris Johnson "delivering milk rounds"?

Good god who in this day & age falls for those obvious stunts? I'd have thought we're so far past this facade of "oh, look at him there rolling up his sleeves". Sure, they all do it - though Johnson has ploughed a particularly eccentric line throughout his career - but I'm genuinely flummoxed how such transparent tokenism gains any traction with voters. You see a little bit of it over here with the occasional pulled pint, but I don't think our TDs indulge in such obvious, patronising "lord of the manor turns a few sods" to the same extent.

It's social media and memes before social media. Here's another example:

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1204412793744551941?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1204412793744551941&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepoke.co.uk%2F2019%2F12%2F11%2Fboris-johnson-drove-bulldozer-through-a-fake-wall%2F

I suspect that it's to give the older voters a chuckle and to detract from his exploitation of tragedies and penchant for deceit by making him appear comical or normal.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's social media and memes before social media. Here's another example:

I suspect that it's to give the older voters a chuckle and to detract from his exploitation of tragedies and penchant for deceit by making him appear comical or normal.

Yeah, I guess so. I'm just surprised it's persisted with; though as you say, it probably still plays well with older demographics. Johnson has certainly been quite strategic about the use of that kind of manufactured buffoonery, I'm saddened it's still a factor as Prime Minister.

I do still wonder if the producers of Have I Got News For You lament privately about having fallen for this fake bumbling routine, giving Johnson the very platform he desired. Everyone look at the affable, harmless toff. What larks.

L1011

pixelburp wrote: »

I do still wonder if the producers of Have I Got News For You lament privately about having fallen for this fake bumbling routine, giving Johnson the very platform he desired. Everyone look at the affable, harmless toff. What larks.

HIGNFY enabled the public image of Farage and Mogg also.

ArmaniJeanss

pixelburp wrote: »

Boris Johnson "delivering milk rounds"?

Good god who in this day & age falls for those obvious stunts? I'd have thought we're so far past this facade of "oh, look at him there rolling up his sleeves". Sure, they all do it - though Johnson has ploughed a particularly eccentric line throughout his career - but I'm genuinely flummoxed how such transparent tokenism gains any traction with voters. You see a little bit of it over here with the occasional pulled pint, but I don't think our TDs indulge in such obvious, patronising "lord of the manor turns a few sods" to the same extent.

It's very much a Tory thing (and probably Blair as well in fairness) - Gideon Osbourne famously pretty much had a hard-hat as part of his wardrobe for his many factory visits.
I think it's to make them look like a normal working person, but they always manage to look like a slightly awkward ex-Etonian doing something completely alien.

Our TDs generally don't need to do it as we don't have the same class system.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's social media and memes before social media. Here's another example:

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1204412793744551941?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1204412793744551941&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepoke.co.uk%2F2019%2F12%2F11%2Fboris-johnson-drove-bulldozer-through-a-fake-wall%2F

I suspect that it's to give the older voters a chuckle and to detract from his exploitation of tragedies and penchant for deceit by making him appear comical or normal.

Good comment in that thread there. Is that one of the diggers johnson is going to lie down before on the heathrow runway?

This stuff is probably aimed at a younger market i guess. They already have the older age groups so just need to get them voting. I was struck on that love actually spoof video, that they made the conscious decision to use a mixed race couple. If that was being aimed at an older demographic, you can be sure they'd never have done that.

Joe_ Public

L1011 wrote: »

HIGNFY enabled the public image of Farage and Mogg also.

Satire is tricky. Nobody loved her Spitting Image persona more than thatcher herself. Not being ripped apart on the show was seen as a sure sign that you just hadnt cut through yet.

Strazdas

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.

A hung parliament will kill Brexit stone dead though. The public rejecting the 'Get Brexit Done' manifesto will be the end of it.....there's no chance the public would vote to leave in any future referendum if they've already voted against a WA that was on offer to them.

Melanchthon

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I have no idea where this weird nonsense idea that you can only support one party and hate the other comes from. It's just reductive and bad faith debate in my opinion.

And this is why this why all the lamenting of polite rational discourse and hating the rise of political tribalism and being mystified about why voters respond from the left (and some centrist) commentariat is tosh, because as illustrated completely different standards are applied to different political wings.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nonsense. I'm not checking your argument for you by the way.

People will want to know why this happened. It's perfectly reasonable for Khan to apportion blame to the Tories when it is richly deserved. You can't impose austerity and then wonder why public services deteriorate.

So the response to highlighting the fact that Sadiq Kahn was making political hay from a terror attack before Borris Johnson was is that, is it's ok because the Tories are to blame, yet Borris being political about sentencing is "opportunistic" and makes him unsuitable to be leader.

If a UKIP politician the day after the attack at a press conference said, this attack happened because previous governments have been too open to migration from former commonwealth Muslim majority countries, would you say it's holding those former governments to account or is it opportunistic? Keeping in mind it's factually true, Eastern European states have been involved in "the war on terror" and not suffered Islamist attacks, Sweden and other Western European countries that had limited to no involvement have suffered Islamist attacks.

ancapailldorcha

Melanchthon wrote: »

So the response to highlighting the fact that Sadiq Kahn was making political hay from a terror attack before Borris Johnson was is that, is it's ok because the Tories are to blame, yet Borris being political about sentencing is "opportunistic" and makes him unsuitable to be leader.

Sadiq Khan is not running for election. He's already Mayor of London and handling terrorism is a national competence not a regional one. Johnson clearly tried to blame Labour for the incident. This is what is opportunistic.

Melanchthon wrote: »

If a UKIP politician the day after the attack at a press conference said, this attack happened because previous governments have been too open to migration from former commonwealth Muslim majority countries, would you say it's holding those former governments to account or is it opportunistic? Keeping in mind it's factually true, Eastern European states have been involved in "the war on terror" and not suffered Islamist attacks, Sweden and other Western European countries that had limited to no involvement have suffered Islamist attacks.

Do not derail the thread please. This is about the UK's election this week.

pixelburp

L1011 wrote: »

HIGNFY enabled the public image of Farage and Mogg also.

Indeed; does make one wonder if they'll be more circumspect about bringing on guests or presenters who appear to be "game" politicians up for a laugh. Can't imagine Ian Hislop to be very happy about having effectively given that trio a leg up into the public domain.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It's very much a Tory thing (and probably Blair as well in fairness) - Gideon Osbourne famously pretty much had a hard-hat as part of his wardrobe for his many factory visits.
I think it's to make them look like a normal working person, but they always manage to look like a slightly awkward ex-Etonian doing something completely alien.

Our TDs generally don't need to do it as we don't have the same class system.

Indeed, if the Brexit era has shown anything, it's that the class system in England appears to remain alive and well, still feeding off lingering cultural biases and deferences towards social "betters".

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

A hung parliament will kill Brexit stone dead though. The public rejecting the 'Get Brexit Done' manifesto will be the end of it.....there's no chance the public would vote to leave in any future referendum if they've already voted against a WA that was on offer to them.

no it wouldn't it would just drag it on longer

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

no it wouldn't it would just drag it on longer

How? A hung Parliament would see the election of an interim government which would enact legislation seeking an extension so that a People's Vote can be held, ending this whole embarrassing debacle.

Strazdas

Aegir wrote: »

no it wouldn't it would just drag it on longer

Johnson losing the election would be a body blow to the Brexit movement, an absolute calamity.

Bannasidhe

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed; does make one wonder if they'll be more circumspect about bringing on guests or presenters who appear to be "game" politicians up for a laugh. Can't imagine Ian Hislop to be very happy about having effectively given that trio a leg up into the public domain.

Hislop and Merton were bemoaning their role in enabling politicians to present themselves as jolly chaps on the last episode.
I have to say I never understood why they invited 'serving' politicos be be on - retired no issue with that - but imho the still sitting ones (of all hues) should be the targets not the shooters as it were.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

First Draft did not make any distinction - if Full Fact questioned a claim, First Draft deemed it misleading for the purposes of this 'analysis'. And one of the criteria Full Fact used to query Tory claims was that they are conveniently using different data sources to suit their claims - like using SMC for overall and in-work poverty statistics and government data for pensioner poverty stats.

The supposedly clear cut distinction between disputed and misleading was mentioned by you, and it came across rather as an attempt to validate an existing bias tbh.

Which bias do you think I am trying to validate?

We're told that we end up with Brexit because people believe everything they read on the internet, and should not be so easily duped.

And we're told that we end up with Brexit because someones gut tells them not to believe everything on they read on internet.

Personally I think we'll end up with Brexit because of people's inability and refusal to admit that their starting position was wrong, no matter what the evidence.

An internationally recognised non profit organisation, which has no affiliation to any party in the UK or otherwise, and had no preconceptions about the result, conducted a study and published a result. All data was shown transparently, and the BBC, who will have presumably also done their own due diligence, published the report. BBC reporters have been seen to jump the gun on Twitter reporting incorrect facts etc, but they have a pretty good track record when it comes to publishing articles about reports such as this.

The organisation in question has commissioned similar studies in other countries and is not considered biased or controversial. Nobody from other parties disputed the report and no evidence was provided to dispute it.

You decided that you just felt it in your gut that the report must be wrong, despite having no evidence. You then went and found what you claim to be evidence, which that Labour’s claim that 400k more pensioners are in poverty is false. The source of the evidence you quoted contained a paragraph, which you I presume purposely chose to remove when quoting it, that said official government figures say that 400k more pensioners are in poverty, which goes a long way to validating Labour’s claim.

There’s no point in continuing this discussion as you’re unwilling to accept the facts at hand, and it is barely relevant to ongoing debate anyway, so I’m going to leave it at that.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How? A hung Parliament would see the election of an interim government which would enact legislation seeking an extension so that a People's Vote can be held, ending this whole embarrassing debacle.

we have effectively had a hung parliament for the last two years and look where that has gotten us?

For what you are suggesting to happen, would require a rainbow coalition to happen which would result in nothing but parliament wrapped up in internal squabbles.

Strazdas wrote: »

Johnson losing the election would be a body blow to the Brexit movement, an absolute calamity.

only if he lost to an overall majority, which seems highly unlikely.

The protocol is that the party with the most seats gets the first attempt at forming a government, which is likely to mean Conservatives plus whoever. If it is labour plus SNP, for example then it would require labour to drop their manifesto pledge and not renegotiate the deal and most likely to allow a Scottish independence referendum.

hometruths

In other news Labour unleashing ads today with the roundly debunked £6716 better off claim.



https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=464448297580291

Chips Lovell

At a time of national crisis, a hung parliament isn't necessarily a bad thing. It means you need to build consensus and, in its absence, it prevents the government of the day doing anything stupid.

It has helped the UK walk the tight rope created by the Brexit referendum, for example.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

In other news Labour unleashing ads today with the roundly debunked £6716 better off claim.



https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=464448297580291

A poster earlier said that Labour's manifesto pledges and commitments were beyond reproach.

This is one example among many of how they are misleading the public.

Yes, Johnson does it too, but let's not casually overlook Labour's equally abhorrent, outright lies.