General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Slowyourrole

BBC seem to have cancelled the airing of the Panorama special on child poverty. Obviously it would have made the government look terrible. It's unreal how badly their reputation is being hammered.

Strazdas

sid waddell wrote: »

Nothing is inevitable. You're assuming that UK politics, specifically how the Tories themselves operate and are covered in the media, will exist in a framework where objective truths matter.

I think it's inarguable that that's already gone.

I think it's more likely that there will be a lurch towards the right and we'll see the Tories mutate into a sort of illiberal Trump/Viktor Orban/Erdogan type regime - full blown right-wing populist with a client media successfully manipulating enough people into a sense of eternal victimhood to keep the Tories in power for a long, long time.

Many Conservative voters are closet right wing authoritarians who would be happy to live under such a regime : witness how 'Take Back Control' struck a note with them.....they want the UK population to be under control too.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Many Conservative voters are closet right wing authoritarians who would be happy to live under such a regime : witness how 'Take Back Control' struck a note with them.....they want the UK population to be under control too.

Could you provide a source to back up that statement?

sid waddell

Strazdas wrote: »

Many Conservative voters are closet right wing authoritarians who would be happy to live under such a regime : witness how 'Take Back Control' struck a note with them.....they want the UK population to be under control too.

It's a very short leap from "Get it done" to "Get 'em out". "Get 'em out" is already a sort of unofficial catchphrase among some of the people you mention - remember the video a couple of weeks ago of a Tory supporter saying it to Johnson.

Anybody who thinks this stuff can't happen only has to look at the US and how th Republicans behave - the concept of objective truth has disappeared. The Tory media is steadily pushing UK politics in that direction.

It's the "denial" (and that's how it will be framed) of the fantastical dreams of the Brexiteers if Brexit actually happens that people should be really worried about, because that's when things could turn extremely nasty in Britain.

ancapailldorcha

Some encouraging news for the remain side from Professor John Curtice:

The Strathclyde University professor of politics warned Boris Johnson that he "is not home and dry" and added he should "not be sure he's got it in the bag" speaking to the BBC's Electioncast podcast.

Curtice said there was still a huge opportunity for the Remain vote to keep Boris Johnson from being elected as prime minister, as the Conservatives have 'squeezed' all of the Leave votes they can but Labour can still gather more Remain voters.

"We do have to bear in mind that probably Boris Johnson needs a bit more than a six point lead before we say yes he's clearly all home and dry," he said.

"If the lead is indeed around 10 points he is not so far ahead from where he needs to be to get a majority for us to be sure that he has got it in the bag. Again we just do have to remember that this is essentially a binary election in which either Boris Johnson gets a majority in which case Brexit should happen or he fails to get a majority."

"Then there is a high probability that we will get a minority Labour administration charged with the task of applying for an extension and going for a second referendum.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/polling-mastermind-john-curtice-says-underestimated-remain-vote-will-decide-election-1-6407100

He said recently that the chances of a Labour majority are "effectively zero" while giving the probability of a Conservative majority as 66% so this is interesting. Ultimately, remain voters need to vote tactically and actually make sure that they vote.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Some encouraging news for the remain side from Professor John Curtice:



https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/polling-mastermind-john-curtice-says-underestimated-remain-vote-will-decide-election-1-6407100

He said recently that the chances of a Labour majority are "effectively zero" while giving the probability of a Conservative majority as 66% so this is interesting. Ultimately, remain voters need to vote tactically and actually make sure that they vote.

A 2% swing from cons to lab would probably be enough to do it. If enough traditional lab voters who say they are voting con get itchy fingers when they enter the ballot box and find they just can't make that seismic leap after all, we could be heading for hung parliament and an unprecedented level of horse trading.

quokula

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Some encouraging news for the remain side from Professor John Curtice:



https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/polling-mastermind-john-curtice-says-underestimated-remain-vote-will-decide-election-1-6407100

He said recently that the chances of a Labour majority are "effectively zero" while giving the probability of a Conservative majority as 66% so this is interesting. Ultimately, remain voters need to vote tactically and actually make sure that they vote.

Another takeaway from that is that if the Conservatives do win, it will ultimately be a function of the Brexit party choosing to stand aside for them to help make Brexit happen, while the Lib Dems decided to fight Labour tooth and nail and prioritised attempting to gain a few seats over stopping Brexit.

Hopefully as more and more voters realise it makes more sense to vote for Labour with the exception of a small number of constituencies, the numbers will continue moving in the right direction.

Bannasidhe

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Corbyn helped IRA bombmaker Gerard McLaughlin to skip up the Islington housing list.

It's a mudslinging article taking a scatter gun approach - it even managed to bring in antisemitism and the Greenham Common Women. It is long on allegations, short on actual proof, is tarring community led organisations like the Irish in Islington Project with the IRA brush (No doubt if Corbyn was the MP in Diane Abbot's constituency they would be claiming the London Irish Women's Centre was a 'front' for hard line lefty IRA - it really a front for helping women in Ireland get around the 8th Amendment :P ).

Here's the thing - I worked as a community worker for the dept of Housing in neighbouring Hackney during this exact time period and as part of my job I went to places like the Irish in Islington Proj, and Holloway Jail, and met with a hell of a lot of people and attended a hell of a lot of meetings across North London.

So based on my real life experience living, and working, as an Irish person for a 'hard left' Labour controlled, North London borough I am calling BS on that article for the following reasons:

It says there was a flat swop - this was very common. I facilitated a lot of these. There wouldn't be any involvement from Councillors never mind MPs. Person A living in Wales (or Durham, or Peterborough, or Chelsea) literally swops their tenancy with Person B living in (in this instance) Islington. It was a form filling exercise. As long as neither had no rent arrears all they had to do was fill out the required forms and that was that. There were literally thousands of such swops. No reason needed to be given.


There were Irish community projects across the UK, they tended to attract LA funding - provided they fit the funding criteria - as at the time the Irish were experiencing often violent repercussions of the IRA's bombing activities. Remember these were the days when the Maguires, Guildford 4, and Birmingham 6 were all in jail for crimes the did not commit.
It was not easy to get funding despite what the Thatcherites at the time claimed. Local MPs would often write letters of support but this was no guarantee.
Funding tended to be spread across many departments within the LA - so staff might be paid for by housing dept, some activities by leisure dept, short term activities would be paid for out of specific funding allocations - these had to be applied for each time and there was no guarantee of success. Lots of application forms, lots of form filling.
Other agencies would fund activities like education - so the ILEA or the borough's Adult Education would pay for tutors and courses. ILEA paid for youth clubs.
Occasionally the GLC would announce a funding round. They had unbelievably strict criteria and tended to focus on short term, clearly defined activities. You could not just apply to the GLC for funding - it had to be in response to a published announcement of a funding round.

In order for a community organisation to qualify for funding there had to be an elected management committee, a written constitution, audited accounts.
Every penny had to be accounted for or no more funding ever.

Every single job had to be filled according to equal opportunities. At least one 'outsider' had to sit on every interview panel pref from outside the borough (I got dragged in do this a lot), plus a representative from who ever was funding that position, plus a member of the management committee. Each panel member had a list of 'required' and 'desired' skills drawn up from the job description. Who would ask what questions in what order was agreed before the interviews started. Every interviewee was asked the exact same questions, in the exact same order. They interviewer would literally tick a box depending on the answer. The person with the most 'ticks' got an offer of the job subject to references. ALL of this information had to be kept on file in case there was a query/ complaint. Failure to follow this procedure could (and sometimes did) lead to loss of funding.
Any attempt to influence the interview panel would lead to a candidate being automatically disqualified. A letter from an MP would get your name removed.

As for Corbyn being at meetings with xxxx or zzzz - as I said - there were meetings all the time. These people loved to have meetings. There were meetings about having fecking meetings. I was at meetings with people I wouldn't pee on if they were on fire. There were actual fascists at meetings I attended. Does that make me a fascist sympathiser?

Yes, Corbyn sat down and spoke to people involved in the IRA campaign so did members of Thatcher's government. The aim was to try and broker a peace deal. Eventually, that happened.

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

Another takeaway from that is that if the Conservatives do win, it will ultimately be a function of the Brexit party choosing to stand aside for them to help make Brexit happen, while the Lib Dems decided to fight Labour tooth and nail and prioritised attempting to gain a few seats over stopping Brexit.

Hopefully as more and more voters realise it makes more sense to vote for Labour with the exception of a small number of constituencies, the numbers will continue moving in the right direction.

The Lib Dems aren't fighting Labour. They're fighting the Conservatives and to woo moderate and liberal Tories they need to appear as repulsed by Corbyn as they are. It makes no sense gunning for liberal centrists on the Labour side as they won't be voting for the Tories hence Swinson's aggressive anti Corbyn stance as well as her various gaffes about austerity and committing to a budget surplus. I think they should have ditched the unilateral revocation policy once Labour committed to a People's Vote which I think has hurt them in Tory seats.

quokula

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think they should have ditched the unilateral revocation policy once Labour committed to a People's Vote which I think has hurt them in Tory seats.

You got the timeline wrong there - they introduced the unilateral revoke policy after Labour committed to a People's Vote specifically so they could differentiate themselves and continue attacking Labour on Brexit.

They've since dropped it as it proved massively unpopular with the electorate and with many of their own members.

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

You got the timeline wrong there - they introduced the unilateral revoke policy after Labour committed to a People's Vote specifically so they could differentiate themselves and continue attacking Labour on Brexit.

They've since dropped it as it proved massively unpopular with the electorate and with many of their own members.

They've had that policy for a while. It's only been ditched very recently.

Joe_ Public

I'm all for tactical voting. I sincerely hope lab voters can get behind the campaign to oust Raab and other conservatives under pressure from lib dems. But they are not making it easy with stuff like this to be honest. Very disappointing.

https://twitter.com/faizashaheen/status/1201976218469445634?s=20

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I like McDonnell but he's ruled himself out. In fact, he said he will step down from the shadow cabinet if they lose the election.

Probably just as well. I think Labour should go with someone from the new generation for a better look. It would weaken the constant comparisons with the 1970's.

LuckyLloyd

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Lib Dems aren't fighting Labour. They're fighting the Conservatives and to woo moderate and liberal Tories they need to appear as repulsed by Corbyn as they are. It makes no sense gunning for liberal centrists on the Labour side as they won't be voting for the Tories hence Swinson's aggressive anti Corbyn stance as well as her various gaffes about austerity and committing to a budget surplus. I think they should have ditched the unilateral revocation policy once Labour committed to a People's Vote which I think has hurt them in Tory seats.

So Swinson will have achieved nothing bar maybe a few extra seats. If you’re in a constituency where Labour are the most likely challenger to the Tories what remaining rationale is there to vote Lib Dem?

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

You got the timeline wrong there - they introduced the unilateral revoke policy after Labour committed to a People's Vote specifically so they could differentiate themselves and continue attacking Labour on Brexit.

They've since dropped it as it proved massively unpopular with the electorate and with many of their own members.

Yeah i think thats correct. As a formal policy it was adopted in September i think it was, even though there may have been some previous talk of it. I remember swinson being interviewed before that and getting criticized for saying she wouldnt accept a no vote in another referendum so could see why a move to revoke held appeal for her and others.

quokula

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They've had that policy for a while. It's only been ditched very recently.

Labour fully committed support for second referendum with remain on the ballot paper in August - they'd also been strongly hinting at it for some time previously, but holding out to see what deal the Tories brought back and what the circumstances were.

Lib Dems pledged to revoke article 50 in September, replacing their previous policy of a second referendum with remain on the ballot paper. They immediately started putting out ads attacking Labour's policy as if it was the same as Nigel Farage's.

This tactic has backfired on them and they've been rowing back in recent weeks.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So Swinson will have achieved nothing bar maybe a few extra seats. If you’re in a constituency where Labour are the most likely challenger to the Tories what remaining rationale is there to vote Lib Dem?

There are constituencies where Lib Dem barcharts aren't fabricated. Labour are the challenger in most but there are a minority where voting Lib Dem makes more sense.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No silly links please. Post deleted.

LuckyLloyd

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are constituencies where Lib Dem barcharts aren't fabricated. Labour are the challenger in most but there are a minority where voting Lib Dem makes more sense.

In those constituencies, yes - hold your nose and vote for the Lib Dem’s. But outside of that minority, there is no good reason to vote for them imo. A particularly shambolic campaign.

prawnsambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In those constituencies, yes - hold your nose and vote for the Lib Dem’s. But outside of that minority, there is no good reason to vote for them imo. A particularly shambolic campaign.

Well that's the essence of tactical voting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The purpose should be to oust a Tory by voting for whomever is in the best position in the polls to do that. That should be the focus in every constituency where the Tories may be under pressure or not. Just pick the second best polling candidate, hold your nose and vote.

Bannasidhe

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well that's the essence of tactical voting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The purpose should be to oust a Tory by voting for whomever is in the best position in the polls to do that. That should be the focus in every constituency where the Tories may be under pressure or not. Just pick the second best polling candidate, hold your nose and vote.

Even I would vote for the Lib-Dem in that instance and I am far from being on board with Swinson and her policies.

sid waddell

Loughborough University have again laid out in graphic form exactly what the Labour campaign has to deal with. The UK media is hilarously biased in favour of the Tories, well it would be hilarious if it didn't have massive negative implications for society.


https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-3/#section-5

Figure 5.1: Overall newspaper evaluations Weeks 1 - 3 (unweighted)

Figure 5.2: Overall newspaper evaluations Weeks 1 - 3 (weighted by circulation)

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So based on my real life experience living, and working, as an Irish person for a 'hard left' Labour controlled, North London borough I am calling BS on that article for the following reasons:

Ah, go 'way outta that, with your fact-based rational analysis ...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes, Corbyn sat down and spoke to people involved in the IRA campaign so did members of Thatcher's government. The aim was to try and broker a peace deal. Eventually, that happened.

... and when it happened, a certain Elizabeth Windsor had Martin McGuinness drop in for dinner at her place. Bloody Germans. Should send her and her family back too. :rolleyes:

sid waddell

Gedling, just outside Nottingham, is a must hold for Labour - I gave it to the Tories in my predictions a couple of pages back - but this suggests Labour are on course to hold it.

Labour must hold here and repeat that pattern in probably at least 20-25 contituencies in the midlands and north of England.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/11/07/the-conservatives-are-struggling-to-win-a-crucial-midlands-marginal?utm_source=Facebook-Instagram&utm_medium=PaidSocial&utm_campaign=Elections&utm_content=UK-LAL-Loyalist-10&cid1=cid1%3Dd%2Fsn%2Ffb%2Fn%2Fn%2Fn%2Fpaid%2Fn%2Fn%2FUKelections2019%2Fn%2FPEC%2Fuk%2Fn&cid3=UM

ArmaniJeanss

sid waddell wrote: »

Gedling, just outside Nottingham, is a must hold for Labour - I gave it to the Tories in my predictions a couple of pages back - but this suggests Labour are on course to hold it.

Labour must hold here and repeat that pattern in probably at least 20-25 contituencies in the midlands and north of England.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/11/07/the-conservatives-are-struggling-to-win-a-crucial-midlands-marginal?utm_source=Facebook-Instagram&utm_medium=PaidSocial&utm_campaign=Elections&utm_content=UK-LAL-Loyalist-10&cid1=cid1%3Dd%2Fsn%2Ffb%2Fn%2Fn%2Fn%2Fpaid%2Fn%2Fn%2FUKelections2019%2Fn%2FPEC%2Fuk%2Fn&cid3=UM

That's a month old article, not sure it would be relevant now.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well that's the essence of tactical voting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The purpose should be to oust a Tory by voting for whomever is in the best position in the polls to do that. That should be the focus in every constituency where the Tories may be under pressure or not. Just pick the second best polling candidate, hold your nose and vote.

This is true, but unfortunately the Lib Dems have been muddying the water with fake polling, focussing on constituencies they really shouldn't, and leading tactical voting websites to give conflicting advice.

Take Kensington for example. It was a Tory - Labour contest which Labour won by just 20 votes at the last election. Since that election Grenfell happened in that constituency, something which would surely have shored up the anti-Tory vote. Additionally, it is a remain leaning constituency and since 2017 Labour have moved to a more remain stance while the Conservatives have moved to a more extreme Brexit stance.

However, the Lib Dems have decided to parachute in Sam Gamiyah, one of their high profile defectors who was sure to lose in his previous constituency, and focussed heavily on campaigning there, to the extent that it now looks like the Tories are going to walk it while Labour and Libs get 20-30% each. Some tactical vote sites are recommending Labour and some are recommending Lib.

This makes tactical voting difficult in a number of constituencies, and really it would be much more reliable to base decisions on the 2017 results. The reality is that there are 50-60 seats where SNP makes sense, 20-30 seats where Lib Dems make sense, and 500+ seats where Labour makes sense.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So Swinson will have achieved nothing bar maybe a few extra seats. If you’re in a constituency where Labour are the most likely challenger to the Tories what remaining rationale is there to vote Lib Dem?

None frankly. In fact they'd probably be better off just standing down most of their candidates and focusing on key seats that they either have a realistic chance of winning, especially the few Tory-Lib Dem marginals.

Joe_ Public

Really wondering how its going to go for swinson on with neil later. You'd feel he could really go to town if he wanted to but there's a sense of low hanging fruit with it and with johnson still not confirming, an overly hostile approach from neil could attract more criticism for the broadcaster. I guess swinson could surprise us with a spirited performance too though i do doubt that somewhat.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Loughborough University have again laid out in graphic form exactly what the Labour campaign has to deal with. The UK media is hilarously biased in favour of the Tories, well it would be hilarious if it didn't have massive negative implications for society.


https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-3/#section-5

Figure 5.1: Overall newspaper evaluations Weeks 1 - 3 (unweighted)

Figure 5.2: Overall newspaper evaluations Weeks 1 - 3 (weighted by circulation)

you could as easily claim that Labour have a lot more negative issues to deal with.

The "make your own pharma" policy has been pretty much taken apart on here. If the media do it, are they biased or is it just an analysis of the manifesto?

sooner or later, labour supporters are going to have to face the reality that Labour are pretty much ****ing this up for themselves and blaming the media is just hiding the fact that they currently have a leader who just isn't cutting it.

sid waddell

Aegir wrote: »

you could as easily claim that Labour have a lot more negative issues to deal with.

The "make your own pharma" policy has been pretty much taken apart on here. If the media do it, are they biased or is it just an analysis of the manifesto?

sooner or later, labour supporters are going to have to face the reality that Labour are pretty much ****ing this up for themselves and blaming the media is just hiding the fact that they currently have a leader who just isn't cutting it.

So you didn't deal with the Loughborough University statistics and tried to deflect onto something else, thanks for that.