General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

CelticRambler

Admittedly I haven't tried very hard, but I'm still not seeing any polls report the number of "don't knows" - all I've seen are the headline Tory vs Labour percentages. Anyone know what level the don't knows are running at at the moment? I would think that this'd possibly be a more significant factor in this election than any previous one, e.g. "I'm a fiercely remain-voting Tory utterly oppose Johnson's cavalier attitude, but there's no way I'd vote for Corbyn either and my local Lib Dem candidate hasn't a hope so ... ... ... " It could make a big difference if this kind of voter opts to stay at home rather than cast a symbolic protest vote for e.g. the Green Party.

In fact, it'd be really funny if the Greens ended up with as many seats as the Lib Dems through this kind of feck-the-lot-of-em protest, and held the balance of power!

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You don't believe in nations being subject to the will of an undemocratic supranational union, so unless you've changed your stance within the last few days, you can't use that as the basis for your argument.

What a silly point.

a) The Scots voted to remain within the UK 5 years ago, hardly held against their will. If they vote to Leave in a future referendum (and I don't care when it happens - either next year or in 10 years), we should respect that too.

b) The UK voted to Leave the EU.

c) Wales and NI have no wish to Leave the UK.

Therefore, the UK can exist outside the EU.

It really isn't that complicated to understand.

Arguing in favour of greater devolved powers within the UK is entirely consistent with my opposition toward a centralised power in Europe which is even more distant from the ordinary voter.

Furthermore, electorates elect a Leader. In Europe, the Leaders elect a force - the President of the European Commission - who is "above" them. Ordinary people have no say in that vote, and cannot remove that leader. We can remove Leo Varadkar, we cannot remove Ursula von der Leyen.

ArmaniJeanss

Danzy wrote: »

Opinium poll for the Observer, Tories 19 points ahead.

More importantly, 6 points ahead in the North of England and 23 points ahead in the Midlands.

The Tories were always ten ahead in the Midlands so that is different but in the North of England, Labour were alway 20-25% ahead, they have 80 seats there.

Survation is the latest to do some regional polling, being released today.
Things looking a bit better for Labour in the 'North', 12% ahead. Tories 20% ahead in the Midlands so corresponds with Opinium in your poll.

Tories 17% ahead in London though which took me by surprise with Labour currently holding 46 of 73 seats. Labour can't afford a wipeout there.

Tories 11% ahead overall, 40.7 to 29.7.

I downloaded the spreadsheet from this link for reference purposes.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1198891456762720258/photo/1

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

Admittedly I haven't tried very hard, but I'm still not seeing any polls report the number of "don't knows" - all I've seen are the headline Tory vs Labour percentages. Anyone know what level the don't knows are running at at the moment? I would think that this'd possibly be a more significant factor in this election than any previous one, e.g. "I'm a fiercely remain-voting Tory utterly oppose Johnson's cavalier attitude, but there's no way I'd vote for Corbyn either and my local Lib Dem candidate hasn't a hope so ... ... ... " It could make a big difference if this kind of voter opts to stay at home rather than cast a symbolic protest vote for e.g. the Green Party.

In fact, it'd be really funny if the Greens ended up with as many seats as the Lib Dems through this kind of feck-the-lot-of-em protest, and held the balance of power!

I dont know how the polls cater for the dont knows, presumably they are weighted in such a way to take account of it but I'm not sure how. Do recall that it was the undecideds in key swing states that ultimately swung it for trump in 2016 so its potentially a big factor. Also interesting that a poll of undecideds gave corbyn a sizable victory in the leadership debate last week while the regular sky-you gov poll had it almost level.

beggars_bush

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont know how the polls cater for the dont knows, presumably they are weighted in such a way to take account of it but I'm not sure how. Do recall that it was the undecideds in key swing states that ultimately swung it for trump in 2016 so its potentially a big factor. Also interesting that a poll of undecideds gave corbyn a sizable victory in the leadership debate last week while the regular sky-you gov poll had it almost level.

Who is available during the day, to take a phonecall at home for the polls?

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont know how the polls cater for the dont knows, presumably they are weighted in such a way to take account of it but I'm not sure how. Do recall that it was the undecideds in key swing states that ultimately swung it for trump in 2016 so its potentially a big factor. Also interesting that a poll of undecideds gave corbyn a sizable victory in the leadership debate last week while the regular sky-you gov poll had it almost level.

Corbyn didn't land a knock-out blow.

Whatever way you cut it, the debate was a stalemate - though clearly Tory or Labour supporters claim "their side won".

We've all forgotten about the debate already. That's how insignificant it was - and the Tory's continue to climb in the vast majority of polls.

If that's a victory for Corbyn, I'd hate to see what a loss looks like.

Leroy42

I think Labour are running the wrong campaign.

They want this election to be about everything but Brexit, whilst the Tories are focused on Getting Brexit done.

And instead of attacking the Tories for being the very reason why Brexit hasn't yet been done, they want avoid talking about it.

Johnson, for example, is extremely weak on his core argument on GBD. When did he come to that conclusion, only after he had stabbed TM in the back. Why did you delay it 3 times?

I understand why they want to campaign on the rest, but clearly the public are focused predominately on Brexit

Joe_ Public

Johnsons latest pledge - like the phantom new 40 hospitals they're going to deliver 50,000 NEW nurses by 2024.

Except...and there's always an except...that number includes 18,000 who would have been expected to leave to instead be retained. So by being simply retained they'll consider them as NEW.

20,000 police officers, 40 hospitals, 50,000 nurses. Not a shred of credibility to any of them.

Letwin_Larry

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think Labour are running the wrong campaign.

They want this election to be about everything but Brexit, whilst the Tories are focused on Getting Brexit done.

And instead of attacking the Tories for being the very reason why Brexit hasn't yet been done, they want avoid talking about it.

Johnson, for example, is extremely weak on his core argument on GBD. When did he come to that conclusion, only after he had stabbed TM in the back. Why did you delay it 3 times?

I understand why they want to campaign on the rest, but clearly the public are focused predominately on Brexit

the reason imo Lab are reluctant to discuss/debate Brexit is they themselves are split and confused on the subject. you'll get a different line depending on who you talk to, what time of the day it is, and what way the wind is blowing.
Big chunks of their Northern vote is strongly Leave, but Jeremy doesn't like to accept this. Jeremy himself is a lifelong Leaver, who now isn't so sure.
It's laughable.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

What a silly point.

a) The Scots voted to remain within the UK 5 years ago, hardly held against their will. If they vote to Leave in a future referendum (and I don't care when it happens - either next year or in 10 years), we should respect that too.

b) The UK voted to Leave the EU.

c) Wales and NI have no wish to Leave the UK.

Therefore, the UK can exist outside the EU.

It really isn't that complicated to understand.

It obviously is complicated, because you don't seem to understand the inherent contradiction in your own argument - probably because you're conflating two different things.

You say that it's right for the UK to leave the EU because the EU is (amongst other things) "undemocratic" and "distant" ; but you also reject Scotland's decision to remain in the EU because they should put up with whatever the English decide in their undemocratic and distant Parliament.

There's a world of difference between a handful of powers devolved to the constituent nations of the UK by Westminster (and in the process of being clawed back by the Tories) and the right of veto accorded to member states of the EU.

In essence, you're saying that as long as the English remain more numerous than the Scots (or Welsh), they can do whatever they like. Hardly compatible with your supposed support for democracy and the right to self determination.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

20,000 police officers, 40 hospitals, 50,000 nurses. Not a shred of credibility to any of them.

Not a shred of credibility to Corbyn's ENORMOUS spending claims.

Not a shred of credibility for Corbyn to negotiate a deal and then the party argue that the public shouldn't accept it, while he stays quiet.

Not a shred of credibility that he is ambivalent on a Scottish second referendum in public, but in private supports holding one / splitting up the UK.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You say that it's right for the UK to leave the EU because the EU is (amongst other things) "undemocratic" and "distant" ; but you also reject Scotland's decision to remain in the EU because they should put up with whatever the English decide in their undemocratic and distant Parliament.

There's a world of difference between a handful of powers devolved to the constituent nations of the UK by Westminster (and in the process of being clawed back by the Tories) and the right of veto accorded to member states of the EU.

In essence, you're saying that as long as the English remain more numerous than the Scots (or Welsh), they can do whatever they like. Hardly compatible with your supposed support for democracy and the right to self determination.

The UK has a shared history, common language, intertwined politics, and so forth. That is why the UK is treated as a single entity and why Scotland overwhelmingly voted to Remain within the Union of nations. If England were "bullying" Scotland to the degree you hold, Scotland would have left the Union in 2014 by an overwhelming margin. So, let's not exaggerate the situation and assume that the UK union is somehow the same as Montenegro hooking up with Portugal as part of a supranational bureaucracy. I personally don't give a damn whether Scotland wants to Remain/Leave in another referendum, it's got nothing to do with me. All I know is that we should respect the result, Leave or Remain.

But let's not worsen the situation by adding a further layer of federalisation and a further three layers of institutions / presidents, which are yet further from the Scottish people.

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

Who is available during the day, to take a phonecall at home for the polls?

Most pollsters would call either a mobile number or call in the evening, just calling homes during the day would skew the results.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not a shred of credibility to Corbyn's ENORMOUS spending claims.

Not a shred of credibility for Corbyn to negotiate a deal and then the party argue that the public shouldn't accept it, while he stays quiet.

Not a shred of credibility that he is ambivalent on a Scottish second referendum in public, but in private supports holding one / splitting up the UK.

I'm talking about blatant, shameless lies, not unlike the ones that were used in the 2016 referendum campaign. So show some evidence of same in labours manifesto or of corbyn supporting a scottish referendum if looking for some credibility for those claims.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

and why Scotland overwhelmingly voted to Remain within the Union of nations

55% voted No to independence in 2014 - overwhelming it most certainly was not

62% voted to Remain in the EU in 2016

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

55% voted No to independence in 2014 - overwhelming it most certainly was not

62% voted to Remain in the EU in 2016

62% voted to Remain in the EU, as a member of the existing UK.

At least be honest in your characterisations. :rolleyes:

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

62% voted to Remain in the EU, as a member of the existing UK.

At least be honest in your characterisations. :rolleyes:

55% voted to Remain in the UK with the UK as a member of the EU.


At least be honest in your characterisations. :rolleyes:

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

55% voted to Remain in the UK with the UK as a member of the EU.


At least be honest in your characterisations. :rolleyes:

That's a distinction without a difference.

The creeping, underlying point is this: that not everyone who voted Remain is in favour of Leaving the UK.

You can't simplify what is a complex question.

Similarly, not everyone who votes for the SNP is in favour of independence.

Personally, I would argue it's not independence. It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, why the SNP argue for a repatriation of powers from Westminster, only to hand that power to institutions in Brussels.

Whatever you want to call it, don't call it "independence", it's "dependence on the EU".

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a distinction without a difference.

The creeping, underlying point is this: that not everyone who voted Remain is in favour of Leaving the UK.

You can't simplify what is a complex question.

Similarly, not everyone who votes for the SNP is in favour of independence.

Personally, I would argue it's not independence. It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, why the SNP argue for a repatriation of powers from Westminster, only to hand that power to institutions in Brussels.

Whatever you want to call it, don't call it "independence", it's "dependence on the EU".

I didn't comment on Scotland or the EU or anything else.

I'm just meerly pointing out that the vote in Scotland to remain as part of the UK was under the premise that the UK was a member of the EU. If you want to say its unfair to characterise the 62% then the exact same logic has to be applied to the 55% in my opinion. Otherwise, its hypocritical.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a distinction without a difference.

The creeping, underlying point is this: that not everyone who voted Remain is in favour of Leaving the UK.

You can't simplify what is a complex question.

Similarly, not everyone who votes for the SNP is in favour of independence.

.

Yet Brexiters want to use a General Election as a vote on Brexit

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the reason imo Lab are reluctant to discuss/debate Brexit is they themselves are split and confused on the subject. you'll get a different line depending on who you talk to, what time of the day it is, and what way the wind is blowing.
Big chunks of their Northern vote is strongly Leave, but Jeremy doesn't like to accept this. Jeremy himself is a lifelong Leaver, who now isn't so sure.
It's laughable.

I dont think that's quite capturing the complexities facing labour in this election. We know the majority of labour voters in those leave constituencies opted for remain in 2016 and remain voters will likely vote Labour this time too. But if those 2016 leave voters turn out in big numbers thats a problem for labour and they'd be in trouble if they couldn't attract some of that vote. Hence corbyns strategy of playing it down the middle. He understands it pretty well but whether it will work is doubtful. The alternative of making a more pronounced swing to remain would have attracted many, but led to even bigger issues in the north. Bit of devil and the deep blue about it if you ask me.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a distinction without a difference.

The creeping, underlying point is this: that not everyone who voted Remain is in favour of Leaving the UK.

You can't simplify what is a complex question.

Similarly, not everyone who votes for the SNP is in favour of independence.

Personally, I would argue it's not independence. It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, why the SNP argue for a repatriation of powers from Westminster, only to hand that power to institutions in Brussels.

Whatever you want to call it, don't call it "independence", it's "dependence on the EU".

What are these powers that an independent Scotland would surrender to.the bureaucratic and unelected mandarins in Brussels?

Stop moaning ffs

Someone on twitter made a good point. This isn’t an election to pick a party or PM. It’s to pick vastly different outcomes when it comes to brexit or not.
But Johnson accusing Labour of its it’s imaginary money tree forest all while promising thousands of nurses teachers doctors police and hospitals that simply don’t and never will exist is appalling to see.
I don’t believe the majority will fall for any of that tbh

Joe_ Public

The Andrew Neil leader interviews starting tonight with Nicola Sturgeon up first at 7 tonight. Corbyn tomorrow. Should be worth a watch i think.

Zubeneschamali

CelticRambler wrote: »

Admittedly I haven't tried very hard, but I'm still not seeing any polls report the number of "don't knows"

Some info in the tweet below from YouGov - 17% of 2017s Labour voters are reporting as Don't Know vs. 11% of Tories, so Labour should get a nice bump when they make up their minds:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1198948774867066883

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some info in the tweet below from YouGov - 17% of 2017s Labour voters are reporting as Don't Know vs. 11% of Tories, so Labour should get a nice bump when they make up their minds:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1198948774867066883

Pure speculation; this is a very different election, with very different leaders and a potential conclusion to this phase of Brexit.

I know you are almost desperate to find positivity within the Corbyn campaign - and I'm here, as a One Nation Conservative, to burst that bubble.

Corbyn will get annihilated come 12 December.

I for one cannot wait.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Pure speculation; this is a very different election, with very different leaders and a potential conclusion to this phase of Brexit.

I know you are almost desperate to find positivity within the Corbyn campaign - and I'm here, as a One Nation Conservative, to burst that bubble.

Corbyn will get annihilated come 12 December.

I for one cannot wait.

I know you are almost desperate to find negativity within the Corbyn campaign - and I'm here, as a Labour supporter, to burst that bubble.

Corbyn doesn't need to get a majority. Corbyn just needs to restrict the Tories into not getting a majority themselves and bring in a hung parliament. That's victory for Labour and that is entirely possible.

Everyone said Corbyn would get annihilated in 2017. He may do on December 12th but there's nothing to indicate that will happen.

I find it laughable you describe yourself as a One Nation Conservative yet have repeatedly said in this thread you don't give a toss if Scotland leave.

ninebeanrows

Corbyn will do better than expected, 35% or so. Tories now looking likely to hit 40-42%.

Swinson has been exposed as a weak leader and LIB voters wanting a choice on brexit will head towards Labour coming polling day.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK has a shared history, common language, intertwined politics, and so forth. That is why the UK is treated as a single entity

OFFS, how many times have you trotted out this "shared history" line now? There's a town up the road from me here in France, Aubigny-sur-Nère, that was a Scottish (Stuart) enclave until the 19th Century, and in case you didn't know it, the two languages of Scotland are not related to Norman-French that heavily influences the English spoken in the southern parts England.

Taken over the course of 1000 years, there is as much shared history and interwined politics between each of the UK's consituent nation and western continental Europe states as there is with each other. It's high time you studied a bit of history.

Deleted User wrote: »

But let's not worsen the situation by adding a further layer of federalisation and a further three layers of institutions / presidents, which are yet further from the Scottish people.

Oh? Says the guy in favour of an every-man-for-himself type of governance! Except when that man isn't English, then he should do what the English tell him. According to your previous utterances, you believe in the principle of deciding your own laws in your own domain. When was the last time you petitioned any MP to draft or change a law? Do you know that you - or any Scotsman or Welshman - can approach the European Commission directly and ask them to consider your suggestion for a new piece of legislation?

And yet you fully support the English telling the Scots if and when they can determine their own future.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Pure speculation; this is a very different election, with very different leaders and a potential conclusion to this phase of Brexit.

I know you are almost desperate to find positivity within the Corbyn campaign - and I'm here, as a One Nation Conservative, to burst that bubble.

Corbyn will get annihilated come 12 December.

I for one cannot wait.

I continue to find you position odd. You want Corbyn gone and Johnson in charge. Yet it is Johnson, and the conservatives, that are currently the biggest threat to the union. And Corbyn wants to nationalise many industries, surely this aligns with you belied that people directly effected should be able to vote for those in charge, rather than some foreign CEO?

Corbyn wants to invest in the country, increase spending on schools, hospitals, police, transport. Johnson seems to think everything is pretty much ok as it is and only needs small tweeks here and there.