General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They had momentum for sure, quite shocking how quickly it seems to have unravelled. Would davey have done any better? Female candidate probably seemed a good thing at the time. Leadership material not exactly brimful in any party right now - i hear talk of chuka but he might not even get elected.

I can't pretend to know the ins and outs of all the Lib Dem MPS.:o

I assume if you are a tory donor and its a choice between a second ref and Corbyn then you'd take the second referendum reluctantly.

The issue is some of the MPS who get elected would lean in very different directions. Swinson would be fine propping up the tories while Layla Moran not so much.

Realistically for the Lib Dems with quite a few big names in bother its probably pointless to speculate what they will do until a few days before the election.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

A few weeks ago I felt the Lib Dems would have a very good election (but Swinson was a weak link), and I thought potential Labour cabinet members would push Corbyn out if that was a Lib Dem price of coalition government.

Changed my mind a bit now!

Swinson a far weaker link than I imagined, and it will be she who could be pushed out as Corbyn's price!

Couldn’t imagine Corbyn lowering himself to making those kind of demands of another party. Her constituents are likely to remove her from office anyway so it’s a moot point. Hopefully it will be the start of the Lib Dem’s rebuilding themselves as the actual liberal party they used to be again.

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

I can't pretend to know the ins and outs of all the Lib Dem MPS.:o

I assume if you are a tory donor and its a choice between a second ref and Corbyn then you'd take the second referendum reluctantly.

The issue is some of the MPS who get elected would lean in very different directions. Swinson would be fine propping up the tories while Layla Moran not so much.

Realistically for the Lib Dems with quite a few big names in bother its probably pointless to speculate what they will do until a few days before the election.

It does all depend on the numbers. I would imagine there would be as much pressure on lib dems to go with labour as there would be on johnson not to offer a second ref. Hard to know which, if any, would win out.

Just seems to me the toxicity relating to the coalition isnt gone yet and will take another campaign to be cleansed. I could have had more sympathy for swinson on that if she'd shown some more humility, but she went off on this mad power trip from the start. Very badly advised i reckon.

Infini

Corbyn moaning and groaning about Johnson not facing Andrew Neil, whilst Corbyn fails to turn up (Johnson, too) to the ITV debate.

Complete hypocrisy from Corbyn. He'd rather turn up to a biased Channel 4 panel, than to a 7-way panel on the GE itself.

Speaking of Channel 4, I thought it was shameful that, when asked, the other panelists refused to allow Michael Gove to take Johnson's podium during the climate debate. It's ridiculous, too, because Corbyn now has himself replaced with Long-Bailey in another TV debate.

Again, complete inconsistency and hypocrisy from Labour.

A poll conducted by Survation between 26-30 November show a 9-point lead for Prime Minister Johnson.

Infini wrote: »

All of them are lying to some degree or another the problem is you seem to believe Boris is the best person here when in fact he's the biggest shítpeddler besides that bollocks Farage who have been driving the whole UK into the ground over this issue.

At least someone took up my challenge and admits that the Labour party are lying and misleading the public re: spending and tax pledges.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Corbyn moaning and groaning about Johnson not facing Andrew Neil, whilst Corbyn fails to turn up (Johnson, too) to the ITV debate.

Complete hypocrisy from Corbyn. He'd rather turn up to a biased Channel 4 panel, than to a 7-way panel on the GE itself.

Speaking of Channel 4, I thought it was shameful that, when asked, the other panelists refused to allow Michael Gove to take Johnson's podium during the climate debate. It's ridiculous, too, because Corbyn now has himself replaced with Long-Bailey in another TV debate.

Again, complete inconsistency and hypocrisy from Labour.

So it's now Labours fault that Johnson hasn't turned up for the debates or the interview with Andrew Neil because ... erm ...

There was always the opportunity for Johnson to turn up to the ITV one at the last minute which would have completely shown up Corbyn as being the only one not there. As it was after Johnson was replaced by a block of ice there wasn't really much need for him to appear next to an empty podium twice in one week. If the Tories were sending in minor low ranking ministers that nobody has ever heard of then Labour can as well.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

So it's now Labours fault that Johnson hasn't turned up for the debates or the interview with Andrew Neil because ... erm ...

There was always the opportunity for Johnson to turn up to the ITV one at the last minute which would have completely shown up Corbyn as being the only one not there. As it was after Johnson was replaced by a block of ice there wasn't really much need for him to appear next to an empty podium twice in one week. If the Tories were sending in minor low ranking ministers that nobody has ever heard of then Labour can as well.

Complete and utter misrepresentation.

As my post stated - in robustly direct language - it highlights the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Labour's position to complain that a) Johnson is not held to account and b) debate replacements should not be used (climate debate), then for Corbyn to proceed to duck the ITV debate and have a replacement in Long-Bailey. That's the inconsistency.

Put another way, if the shoe were on the other foot, this thread would be jammed with posts condemning Johnson and his hypocrisy. But as always, and as with the misleading/outright lying spending/tax pledges, it all gets a free pass because it comes from Labour. It's quite astonishing to see the double standard at play. It's a pity seldom few others can see it, too.

Iain Dale released a powerful tweet on yet ANOTHER inconsistency on Labour's spending/tax pledges:

https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/1201458071547064320

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

A poll conducted by Survation between 26-30 November show a 9-point lead for Prime Minister Johnson.

Con 42 (+1)
Lab 33 (+3)
compared to figures from a week ago.

Again there's a bit for both sides there, good lead for Johnson, momentum for Corbyn. There'll be a bit of nervousness in Tory Campaign HQ, and they'd prefer the election was this week.
***
Two weeks ago for Survation it was
42% to 28%.

So the bad news for Labour is they appear to be just eating into the Lib Dem vote, not into the Tory vote.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Complete and utter misrepresentation.

As my post stated - in robustly direct language - it highlights the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Labour's position to complain that a) Johnson is not held to account and b) debate replacements should not be used (climate debate), then for Corbyn to proceed to duck the ITV debate and have a replacement in Long-Bailey. That's the inconsistency.

Put another way, if the shoe were on the other foot, this thread would be jammed with posts condemning Johnson and his hypocrisy. But as always, and as with the misleading/outright lying spending/tax pledges, it all gets a free pass because it comes from Labour. It's quite astonishing to see the double standard at play. It's a pity seldom few others can see it, too.

Perfectly fine to criticise Corbyn for not being there, however that was a response to Johnson not being there.

So why wasn't Johnson there then?

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Con 42 (+1)
Lab 33 (+3)
compared to figures from a week ago.

Again there's a bit for both sides there, good lead for Johnson, momentum for Corbyn. There'll be a bit of nervousness in Tory Campaign HQ, and they'd prefer the election was this week.
***
Two weeks ago for Survation it was
42% to 28%.

So the bad news for Labour is they appear to be just eating into the Lib Dem vote, not into the Tory vote.

I suspect with tactical voting, things might change at the last minute, too, for the Brexit Party and Tories - with more marginal seats going to the most likely winner in that constituency.

It works both ways, really.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Perfectly fine to criticise Corbyn for not being there, however that was a response to Johnson not being there.

So why wasn't Johnson there then?

I'm not his spokesperson, but at least Johnson admits he doesn't want to do all debates/interviews.

Corbyn has attacked Johnson from the sideline, yet now appears to be adopting the same approach as Johnson.

You really couldn't make this stuff up. :rolleyes:

Joe_ Public

This is all a load of rubbish to be fair. There were two leaders debates in 2017 and neither May nor Corbyn participated in either. So its just a regular strategy, nothing for anybody to be losing the rag over. May did compete in two head to heads with her main rival. The difference this time is johnsons refusal to engage with neil, whom may obliged, and the crass stunt of sending daddy and gove to the C4 studios as well as an idle threat over its license as a cynical election stunt. Thats the only thing worth talking about.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not his spokesperson, but at least Johnson admits he doesn't want to do all debates/interviews.

He's done one of the debates I believe, and refused the one on one interview with Andrew Neil.

Not exactly worked off his feet is he?

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

This is all a load of rubbish to be fair. There were two leaders debates in 2017 and neither May nor Corbyn participated in either. So its just a regular strategy, nothing for anybody to be losing the rag over. May did compete in two head to heads with her main rival. The difference this time is johnsons refusal to engage with neil, whom may obliged, and the crass stunt of sending daddy and gove to the C4 studios as well as an idle threat over its license as a cynical election stunt. Thats the only thing worth talking about.

Corbyn participated in the BBC1 leaders' debate in 2017, May didn't. Amber Rudd stood in for her.

An Ciarraioch

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Con 42 (+1)
Lab 33 (+3)
compared to figures from a week ago.

Again there's a bit for both sides there, good lead for Johnson, momentum for Corbyn. There'll be a bit of nervousness in Tory Campaign HQ, and they'd prefer the election was this week.
***
Two weeks ago for Survation it was
42% to 28%.

So the bad news for Labour is they appear to be just eating into the Lib Dem vote, not into the Tory vote.

Survation tables confirm this - Labour with 49% of Remain vote, but only 15% of Leavers - really need 25% of the latter just to be where they were in 2017:

https://www.survation.com/new-westminster-voting-intention-survation-on-behalf-of-good-morning-britain/

sid waddell

I see the IFS has said that council tax is more likely to go up under a Tory government than under Labour.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1201455465722449920

Lib Dems (or Antiliberal Undemocrats, to me) continue their car crash campaign.

Swinson should emphatically resign on 13 December.

https://twitter.com/maryftz/status/1201167332070117376

sid waddell

The Tories are cranking up the Putin-like disinformation campaign in a big way:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-general-election-advert-ban-google-fake-news-manifesto-labour-a9223846.html

Google has banned eight different adverts paid for by the Conservatives over the last month because they broke its rules, The Independent can reveal.

The move by the search giant comes amid mounting concerns about the Tories’ use of disinformation and fake news as campaigning tools at the general election.

Transparency data released by the search giant this week shows that the adverts “violated Google’s advertising policies” and had been removed.

Six of the banned adverts were put up by the Tories on the day of the Labour manifesto launch – when the Conservative Party set up a fake website called labourmanifesto.co.uk purporting to contain the opposition’s policies.

During that incident, the Tories paid Google to push its fake version of the Labour manifesto to the top of search results for those searching for the deal document.

That incident followed another earlier in the week in which the Tories set up a fake fact-checking service, which they used to pump out party lines from their press office to unsuspecting social media users.

Google would not disclose the content of the Tory adverts that were pulled nor the exact reasons that they were taken down. The company’s guidelines however say “we value honesty and fairness, so we don’t allow the promotion of products or services that are designed to enable dishonest behaviour”.

It also specifically lists “fake documents” as one of the things that cannot be promoted in advertisements and says “we don’t allow ads or destinations that deceive users”.

None of the election’s other major parties had adverts pulled in recent months, according to the records. Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, however, had five adverts pulled at the end of October for policy violations.

Joe_ Public

For once I'm actually looking forward to trump making himself headline news. Expecting the attacks on corbyn and his self appointment as johnsons unofficial campaign manager to begin any moment now. I think this might even be fun.

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

For once I'm actually looking forward to trump making himself headline news. Expecting the attacks on corbyn and his self appointment as johnsons unofficial campaign manager to begin any moment now. I think this might even be fun.

Ironically Trump is now in complete agreement with Corbyn that the Iraq War was a disaster and contributed hugely to the rise in Islamist terror ideology.

Islamist terror doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Bearing in mind the facts that Trump actually supported the Iraq War at the time and betrayed the Kurds when he knew it would mean a load of ISIS prisoners were going to escape as a result, of course.

Boris Johnson explicitly supported the Iraq War.

AllForIt

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems (or Antiliberal Undemocrats, to me) continue their car crash campaign.

Swinson should emphatically resign on 13 December.

Remember Bollox to Brexit? I think (and could see this coming a mile off) it's more a case Bollox to Swinson. Back when there was talk of Boris being shorted serving PM ever I though if anyone will be doing a shortest it will be Swinson. I do think she'll have to go for lots of reasons, she's been dreadful from the get go with her "we'll stop brexit" policy, which she knows she couldn't possibly do even if she wanted to. That is what gave them a lift in the polls but that's all over now.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems (or Antiliberal Undemocrats, to me) continue their car crash campaign.

Swinson should emphatically resign on 13 December.

https://twitter.com/maryftz/status/1201167332070117376

AllForIt wrote: »

Remember Bollox to Brexit? I think (and could see this coming a mile off) it's more a case Bollox to Swinson. Back when there was talk of Boris being shorted serving PM ever I though if anyone will be doing a shortest it will be Swinson. I do think she'll have to go for lots of reasons, she's been dreadful from the get go with her "we'll stop brexit" policy, which she knows she couldn't possibly do even if she wanted to. That is what gave them a lift in the polls but that's all over now.

Thoroughly depressing reading. They've basically tried to silence a small charity with legal action from a highly priced law firm. It's simply the latest such incident of the Lib Dems behaving like ruthless Tories. I'd expect this sort of stunt from Dominic Raab or Priti Patel, not Jo Swinson's Lib Dems. I think she needs to go to be honest as she's got nothing to show for her campaigning.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thoroughly depressing reading. They've basically tried to silence a small charity with legal action from a highly priced law firm. It's simply the latest such incident of the Lib Dems behaving like ruthless Tories. I'd expect this sort of stunt from Dominic Raab or Priti Patel, not Jo Swinson's Lib Dems. I think she needs to go to be honest as she's got nothing to show for her campaigning.

Ironic how the Lib Dems legal team argue that what was published may negatively impact their upcoming General Election performance.

Clearly they have never heard of the Streisand effect.

The Streisand effect is a phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread it is increased.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently drew further public attention to it. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters to suppress files, websites, and even numbers. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored on the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.

liamtech

I think i have to stand up for the Lib Dems, but only a bit - only in so far as to say that the Lib Dems USED to be a genuine party, with big ideas, placed at the center between The Tories and Labour- and who's existence epitomized why FPTP is Bad for Britain

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thoroughly depressing reading. They've basically tried to silence a small charity with legal action from a highly priced law firm. It's simply the latest such incident of the Lib Dems behaving like ruthless Tories. I'd expect this sort of stunt from Dominic Raab or Priti Patel, not Jo Swinson's Lib Dems. I think she needs to go to be honest as she's got nothing to show for her campaigning.

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems (or Antiliberal Undemocrats, to me) continue their car crash campaign.

Swinson should emphatically resign on 13 December.

https://twitter.com/maryftz/status/1201167332070117376

This is indefensible behavior - its shocking and it really does beg the question - how bad can they get in terms of this election

But i am going to be more specific in my condemnation - the criticism here has to flow to the TOP - the Lib Dems are being lead by the wrong Leader - and it is a genuine problem because when you look at the party - the only two standouts are Chuka and Luciana - and they are in effect Labour defectees; neither can lead the Lib Dems for at least 5 years - at the very least in my view

For a party that was led by Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy, even Nick Clegg (everyone bemoans Clegg over the coalition but he was a capable leader, and spokesperson for the Lib Dems). So too is Vince Cable IMHO, but not as powerful as the above

But over the past 5 years or so since the Coalition, the Lib Dems have had 3 leaders - one of whom, Vince Cable, was in effect a stand-in as there was no one with any class left at that point

Tim Farron - my view of this man is that he would have made an excellent leader of a political party in the 1950's. He is the LibDem equivalent of Jacob Rees Mogg - that is as an anachronism - he would probably feel more at home in the DUP if im quite honest, his ILLIBERAL views on everything from abortion to gay marriage, and LGBTQ issues in general - how or why or WHAT were they thinking electing this guy (one could also question why he himself felt he was a suitable candidate in the 21st century)

Jo Swinson- it is mistake after mistake, with a type of arrogance that we would be hard faced to find in any other political leader

• obviously really fancies her chances as PM - despite it being obvious to all concerned that there is no possibility
• greatfully accepted Chuka and Lucianna into the Party - two decent Labour MP's - and is now throwing them away by placing both in UNWINNABLE constituencies - literally have a look where they are - the only thing that is guaranteed, is that they will thoroughly split the Left/CenterLeft/Remain votes - and ensure a tory is returned - effectively these former Labour MPS are being used as grenades to be thrown BACK at the Labour party
• the DISASTROUS policy of Revoke Article 50 - i am an ARDENT remainer be in no doubt - but this policy just hands a stick to opponents, to beat the Lib Dems over the head with - and for what~? what benefit is it to the Lib Dems? IF they get a majority (which they wont), they will be have in an UNLiberal UNDemocratic way - totally farce - why have this policy at all??

I feel sorry for the party, i really do. I remember as a teenager watching Ashdown and the like, and having admiration for their skills, and their policies - The Lib Dems are on the Ropes now (rather like the Irish Labour party after Gilmore was ousted, but thats another debate) - I think the best they can do is hold on to a few seats, lose Swinson (would be thrilled for her to lose her seat), and just rebuild if they can -

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

But i am going to be more specific in my condemnation - the criticism here has to flow to the TOP - the Lib Dems are being lead by the wrong Leader - and it is a genuine problem because when you look at the party

I knew it was never going to end well when the campaign began with the twin mistakes of:

• "Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats" on the bus, as if she's advertising her own daytime TV show.
• Arrogance of the policy to unilaterally cancel Brexit, alienating and angering vast swathes of the electorate - including Remainers.

Her dual arrogance of the above is what kicked off this mess, and what has proceeded to become a complete and utter joke.

Her ego is clearly far, far bigger than her talent.

If someone of Cleggian proportions were leading the Lib Dems, and with a flagship policy of second referendum only, they would be in a far more commanding position than now.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I knew it was never going to end well when the campaign began with the twin mistakes of:

• "Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats" on the bus, as if she's advertising her own daytime TV show.
• Arrogance of the policy to unilaterally cancel Brexit, alienating and angering vast swathes of the electorate - including Remainers.

Her dual arrogance of the above is what kicked off this mess, and what has proceeded to become a complete and utter joke.

Her ego is clearly far, far bigger than her talent.

If someone of Cleggian proportions were leading the Lib Dems, and with a flagship policy of second referendum only, they would be in a far more commanding position than now.

Goodness i forgot the bus - i think buses should be left out of politics for a while:D

Yes you and i might disagree on many things but we are singing from the same hymn sheet on this one - and like i said, for a party that was once led by Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy, Cable (interim, on both occasions in my view) - to go to Farron - and then Swinson

I really hope the SNP take her seat (perhaps we shall disagree on that one i dare say you would prefer it go to a conservative) - but it would be a Michael McDowell moment - a Portillo moment

Joe_ Public

Dont think swinson losing really qualifies as a portillo moment. Raab on the other hand would be monumental and he's definitely under pressure. IDS too. Johnson losing would be a new category on its own, though still a very outside bet.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dont think swinson losing really qualifies as a portillo moment. Raab on the other hand would be monumental and he's definitely under pressure. IDS too. Johnson losing would be a new category on its own, though still a very outside bet.

I don't know about Johnson losing being an outside bet. He won last time in 2017 by 5,000 votes when he was a lot less toxic. With that margin, I'm amazed that the Lib Dems haven't stood down their candidate. It's likely that he'll win but not guaranteed.

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dont think swinson losing really qualifies as a portillo moment. Raab on the other hand would be monumental and he's definitely under pressure. IDS too. Johnson losing would be a new category on its own, though still a very outside bet.

Well it would be memorable to me along those lines - but i guess thats up for debate

in fairness Raab or IDS would be quality in terms of watching them go down

And yes all i want for christmas... is the new category of Boris Moment - try as i may i cannot think of a term we could use!?

9.1 magnitude political Quake?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

And yes all i want for christmas... is the new category of Boris Moment - try as i may i cannot think of a term we could use!?

9.1 magnitude political Quake?

It won't happen, or is extremely unlikely to happen.

Furthermore, if in the unlikely even he did lose, another Tory - in a safe seat - would step down to trigger a by-election to re-recruit Johnson as the Tory leader. This could be organized as early as January.

Either way, Johnson is not going anywhere.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know about Johnson losing being an outside bet. He won last time in 2017 by 5,000 votes when he was a lot less toxic. With that margin, I'm amazed that the Lib Dems haven't stood down their candidate. It's likely that he'll win but not guaranteed.

Yeah agree with you. He's favourite but not a runaway one. Question is how strong is labour candidate there? I know he's had a couple of issues with antisemitic tweets in the past, but thats not really something a guy like johnson can trade strongly on. Uxbridge has a big student population and that could put a bit more of a squeeze on johnson.