General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Labour should be expected to climb a point or two in the final two weeks. It's what we all expected to happen. As long as Johnson can retain an 7-9 point lead, that is more than sufficient.

As the election draws close, and more realistic polls come into view, I dare say the Brexit Party will mobilise in a very different direction - perhaps giving the Tories an extra 10-20 seats (assuming the Corbyn climb is higher than we'd like).

On security issues, Corbyn is still not trusted on a staggering scale.

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1200883810776309760

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1200885078487916550

Diane Abbott explaining why:

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1201221601431343104

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

On security issues, Corbyn is still not trusted on a staggering scale.

Not at all surprising given how he's portrayed, but he has been on the right side of history time and again and if more UK MPs had acted like he did over the years then the conditions that created ISIS and made Britain a target might never have come to be.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Btw, on second point i think I'd agree with you. Fact is, 70% of labour voters voted remain in 2016 so it was never that side of the equation that would be the problem. The guts of that 30% are in those vital leave areas and while a full pivot to remain might have made some gains elsewhere, there isnt a hope in hell they'd have compensated for the midlands and north labour clear out. So i think it can be argued the middle line strategy was possibly the only one that gave them a fighting chance.

Do you have a source for that 70% claim?

Professor Moriarty

quokula wrote: »

Not at all surprising given how he's portrayed, but he has been on the right side of history time and again and if more UK MPs had acted like he did over the years then the conditions that created ISIS and made Britain a target might never have come to be.

His policies and persona are anathemas to the British public. That's just how it is.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

Do you have a source for that 70% claim?

I thought it was high 60s at least, but should have checked initially. Anyway was estimated 65%.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I thought it was high 60s at least, but should have checked initially. Anyway was estimated 65%.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted

I thought so.

That stat is based on how people voted in the 2015 general election, so I think it is very presumptuous to say that 65% of labour supporters voted to remain.

Labour suffered some heavy losses in 2015 and this could have been labour supporters voting for Tory and UKIP to get the referendum pushed through. A lot then went back to Labour in 2017 which is why UKIP support crashes and labour did much better than expected.

An Ciarraioch

Deleted User wrote: »

Labour should be expected to climb a point or two in the final two weeks. It's what we all expected to happen. As long as Johnson can retain an 7-9 point lead, that is more than sufficient.

As the election draws close, and more realistic polls come into view, I dare say the Brexit Party will mobilise in a very different direction - perhaps giving the Tories an extra 10-20 seats (assuming the Corbyn climb is higher than we'd like).

On security issues, Corbyn is still not trusted on a staggering scale.

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1200883810776309760

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1200885078487916550

Diane Abbott explaining why:

https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1201221601431343104

The Tories have already maxed out the Brexit Party vote, which is why the latter is on 2-3% currently. As for Labour, there are few avenues left for them - either pushing the Lib Dems back into their pre-Euro bracket of single digits, or nibbling a 2-3% direct swing from the Tories.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I thought it was high 60s at least, but should have checked initially. Anyway was estimated 65%.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted

Your point still stands though.

Professor Moriarty

Four charts here. Ignore the first, the other three are very interesting.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

I thought so.

That stat is based on how people voted in the 2015 general election, so I think it is very presumptuous to say that 65% of labour supporters voted to remain.

Labour suffered some heavy losses in 2015 and this could have been labour supporters voting for Tory and UKIP to get the referendum pushed through. A lot then went back to Labour in 2017 which is why UKIP support crashes and labour did much better than expected.

Right, well then maybe the true figure was closer to 70% by that logic. Its obviously not scientific but i think its probably only a couple of percentage points out either way and as the prof points out above, correctly i believe, the general thrust of the argument doesnt change. I dont expect everybody to agree with it.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Tories have already maxed out the Brexit Party vote, which is why the latter is on 2-3% currently. As for Labour, there are few avenues left for them - either pushing the Lib Dems back into their pre-Euro bracket of single digits, or nibbling a 2-3% direct swing from the Tories.

Chris Curtis of you gov pretty much said all this on politics live this morning. Wasnt sure the tories had any more vote share left to squeeze while lab still had some possibilities on their side.

Nigel Farage is spot on here, when he makes the powerful argument that just because an article or phrase of speech is considered "offensive" in some way, shouldn't automatically bar someone from holding high office.

With Boris, we see the same phenomenon. His articles are combed over to find every possible, concievable way to find "offense", and then to argue that someone like that should not be running to be Prime Minister.

It's absolute nonsense. I would rather have a morally imperfect "leader" than a morally perfect "sub-rated leader". We're not voting for who will become the Bishop of Rome, but who will lead one of the most successful nation-states in the world. Winston Churchill was hardly the Pope, and did much wrong, but he was a "leader", of that there is no doubt.

For that reason, we should not be so PC when it comes to who should be our chosen leader.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Nigel Farage is spot on here, when he makes the powerful argument that just because an article or phrase of speech is considered "offensive" in some way, shouldn't automatically bar someone from holding high office.

With Boris, we see the same phenomenon. His articles are combed over to find every possible, concievable way to find "offense", and then to argue that someone like that should not be running to be Prime Minister.

It's absolute nonsense. I would rather have a morally imperfect "leader" than a morally perfect "sub-rated leader". We're not voting for who will become the Bishop of Rome, but who will lead one of the most successful nation-states in the world. Winston Churchill was hardly the Pope, and did much wrong, but he was a "leader", of that there is no doubt.

For that reason, we should not be so PC when it comes to who should be our chosen leader.

A video from The Sun of Farage defending Trump. Nope.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A video from The Sun of Farage defending Trump. Nope.

Hardly an intellectually robust response to a legitimate form of argument!? :rolleyes:

No number of "likes" to your post above nullifies any of the legitimate points in my argument.

beggars_bush

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Four charts here. Ignore the first, the other three are very interesting.

I cannot fathom why so many less educated people would vote Tory?
I mean, it's just bonkers

Professor Moriarty

beggars_bush wrote: »

I cannot fathom why so many less educated people would vote Tory?
I mean, it's just bonkers

Latent nationalism and inherent subservience to their betters.

ancapailldorcha

beggars_bush wrote: »

I cannot fathom why so many less educated people would vote Tory?
I mean, it's just bonkers

It helps immensely when they have most of the press on their side. Ditto for effectively using very simple mantras such as "Get Brexit done".

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

I cannot fathom why so many less educated people would vote Tory?
I mean, it's just bonkers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Latent nationalism and inherent subservience to their betters.

That is an incredibly patronising question and proposed answer.

Why shouldn't a person from an economically disadvantageous background support business, individualism, and the nation-state?
There is no argument that says what you suggest must be the case. People aren't sheep. We shouldn't look down on them as if they are, that "of course" they should vote for Corbyn and a second referendum because they don't have a formal education. That "the stupid sheep" are "controlled by the media", but "us smart people can see through it".

Let's not forget that politics is a complex issue. Many rich, many on middle-class incomes, and many on the less-advantageous points of the scale voted for Brexit. It's not an argument that you can uniformly apply to everyone in society; it divides all households, families, friendships etc. across the board. And to this disgusting idea that "less educated people" cannot make an informed decision. I'm sorry, but there's nothing wrong about having no formal education or third-level education. It doesn't correlate with "making the best decision", which, in this case, means "agreeing with you".

Furthermore, the idea that those in less economically advantageous areas are "subservient to their betters" shows nothing but sheer contempt for this part of society. Yet, it's they who you wish will vote for the Labour Party. Why on Earth would they vote for a form of politics, with views such as yours, which condemn them as stupid and illiterate - who, you are arguing, cannot make an informed and intelligently reasonable political argument.

What this exposes is the pure arrogance and elitism of those in favour of Remain. This constant looking down on poorer people as stupid turns my stomach.

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

That is an incredibly patronising question and proposed answer.

Why shouldn't a person from an economically disadvantageous background support business, individualism, and the nation-state?
There is no argument that says what you suggest must be the case. People aren't sheep. We shouldn't look down on them as if they are, that "of course" they should vote for Corbyn and a second referendum because they don't have a formal education. That "the stupid sheep" are "controlled by the media", but "us smart people can see through it".

Let's not forget that politics is a complex issue. Many rich, many on middle-class incomes, and many on the less-advantageous points of the scale voted for Brexit. It's not an argument that you can uniformly apply to everyone in society; it divides all households, families, friendships etc. across the board. And to this disgusting idea that "less educated people" cannot make an informed decision. I'm sorry, but there's nothing wrong about having no formal education or third-level education. It doesn't correlate with "making the best decision", which, in this case, means "agreeing with you".

Furthermore, the idea that those in less economically advantageous areas are "subservient to their betters" shows nothing but sheer contempt for this part of society. Yet, it's they who you wish will vote for the Labour Party. Why on Earth would they vote for a form of politics, with views such as yours, which condemn them as stupid and illiterate - who cannot make an informed and intelligently reasonable political argument.

What this exposes is the pure arrogant and elitism of those in favour of Remain. This constant looking down on poorer people as stupid turns my stomach.

Tories have dine everything in their power to make poor people poorer in their 9 years in government.

Turkeys do vote for Xmas it seems

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

That is an incredibly patronising question and proposed answer.

Why shouldn't a person from an economically disadvantageous background support business, individualism, and the nation-state?
There is no argument that says what you suggest must be the case. People aren't sheep. We shouldn't look down on them as if they are, that "of course" they should vote for Corbyn and a second referendum because they don't have a formal education. That "the stupid sheep" are "controlled by the media", but "us smart people can see through it".

Let's not forget that politics is a complex issue. Many rich, many on middle-class incomes, and many on the less-advantageous points of the scale voted for Brexit. It's not an argument that you can uniformly apply to everyone in society; it divides all households, families, friendships etc. across the board. And to this disgusting idea that "less educated people" cannot make an informed decision. I'm sorry, but there's nothing wrong about having no formal education or third-level education. It doesn't correlate with "making the best decision", which, in this case, means "agreeing with you".

Furthermore, the idea that those in less economically advantageous areas are "subservient to their betters" shows nothing but sheer contempt for this part of society. Yet, it's they who you wish will vote for the Labour Party. Why on Earth would they vote for a form of politics, with views such as yours, which condemn them as stupid and illiterate - who, you are arguing, cannot make an informed and intelligently reasonable political argument.

What this exposes is the pure arrogance and elitism of those in favour of Remain. This constant looking down on poorer people as stupid turns my stomach.

The only person saying that poorer people are stupid is your good self. And quite a few of the Tory elite.

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

I cannot fathom why so many less educated people would vote Tory?
I mean, it's just bonkers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Latent nationalism and inherent subservience to their betters.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The only person saying that poorer people are stupid is your good self. And quite a few of the Tory elite.

No, it's definitely not me.

If you cannot understand the implication derived from the above quotes, there's nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's definitely not me.

If you cannot understand the implication derived from the above quotes, there's nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise.

So "less educated" = "stupid" in your lexicon. Now I understand your assumption.

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

No, it's definitely not me.

If you cannot understand the implication derived from the above quotes, there's nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise.

I was referring to the opinion polls linked above

MayoSalmon

beggars_bush wrote:

Tories have dine everything in their power to make poor people poorer in their 9 years in government.

9 years ago was the height of a recession so in fact I would imagine 90% of people at least are much better off today than then.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So "less educated" = "stupid" in your lexicon. Now I understand your assumption.

We all know that the poster was talking about Labour voters and implied that they were "less educated" i.e. more working class, and so should "obviously" vote for the Labour Party. It doesn't take that much to work out what's going on.

It's sneering, snidey, elitist language which pushed many people to vote Brexit in the first place - namely, this insulting insinuation that they "did not know what they were voting for". You can climb back and hide behind pedantry, that's your choice. But the common reader on here knows exactly the direct implication of the above quotes. It's crystal clear.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

9 years ago was the height of a recession so in fact I would imagine 90% of people at least are much better off today than then.

Exactly true.

Thanks to the Conservative Party, the economy is not only back on its feet - but actively jumping up and down with excitement.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

We all know that the poster was talking about Labour voters and implied that they were "less educated" i.e. more working class, and so should "obviously" vote for the Labour Party. It doesn't take that much to work out what's going on.

It's sneering, snidey, elitist language which pushed many people to vote Brexit in the first place - namely, this insulting insinuation that they "did not know what they were voting for". You can climb back and hide behind pedantry, that's your choice. But the common reader on here knows exactly the direct implication of the above quotes. It's crystal clear.



Exactly true.

Thanks to the Conservative Party, the economy is not only back on its feet - but actively jumping up and down with excitement.

You're the person who decided that people who were less educated were "stupid". It's there in black and white. Nobody else used 'stupid' about poorer Tory voters. Why did you jump to that conclusion?

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Right, well then maybe the true figure was closer to 70% by that logic. Its obviously not scientific but i think its probably only a couple of percentage points out either way and as the prof points out above, correctly i believe, the general thrust of the argument doesnt change. I dont expect everybody to agree with it.

No, you miss the point spectacularly and this is the position labour are in.

Many life long labour supporters voted to leave. You then have Corbin who is also a life long leaver, however, he became leader based on what was pretty much a swell of support from new members based on a social media campaign, but who are also remainers.

This conflict of interest in labour is becoming obvious and has resulted in their poor polling.

You can blame the right wing media, or the serfs wanting to be subservient to their betters or whatever bull**** excuses you like, the reality is people don’t really know who or what labour are at the moment, other than populist.

Aidric

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It helps immensely when they have most of the press on their side. Ditto for effectively using very simple mantras such as "Get Brexit done".

Echoes of 'taking back control'. Same bloke at the helm. The press choices of the so called 'poorly educated' are bracketed with the press of 'the establishment' to create a fluid line to the continuation of the norm.

Roanmore

Deleted User wrote: »

9 years ago was the height of a recession so in fact I would imagine 90% of people at least are much better off today than then.



Exactly true.

Thanks to the Conservative Party, the economy is not only back on its feet - but actively jumping up and down with excitement.

One poster imagines a stat and another jumps in saying it's exactly true and not a source between them. This is becoming more and more like a Tory Tweet fest.

prawnsambo

Aidric wrote: »

Echoes of 'taking back control'. Same bloke at the helm. The press choices of the so called 'poorly educated' are bracketed with the press of 'the establishment' to create a fluid line to the continuation of the norm.

Just saw a statistic today that really illustrates how broken the whole system is: 192 seats in the Commons haven't changed hands since 1945 or earlier.