General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'm perfectly open to criticism of corbyns position and always have been. This stuff about leadership is a red herring and the comparison to johnson is most certainly appropriate. Condemnation? Has he committed a crime or something? He has explained that his interest is in bringing both sides of the question together. People can criticise that and dislike it as policy, but to condemn it? Thats just well out of order.

So theres a chance corbyn might be acting out of self interest. In an election campaign? Who'd ever have thought it?

You are perfectly entitled to that view.

However, I don't hold it. And I don't believe Corbyn's explanation.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to that view.

However, I don't hold it. And I don't believe Corbyn's explanation.

What don't you believe about him saying he's not going to campaign either way?
All he has to do to follow up with that commitment is not say anything.

Or do you not believe he's trying to bring the country together?
How is campaigning for either hard brexit or revoking going to bring people together in something that is at last check in 2016 a 50/50 result?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to that view.

However, I don't hold it. And I don't believe Corbyn's explanation.

Good man. It may well be self interest, corbyn assessing the middle ground as the best, or least damaging way, of fighting an election campaign. He may be right or wrong on that, time will tell.

But i wasnt interested in the morality or otherwise of his stance which you charged in on your noble steed on, just the practicalities of him taking positions on either side. That's what interests me and what i rarely see addressed in a very meaningful way. Or so it seems to me.

ancapailldorcha

I think Corbyn's neutrality is his best option given how split his voter base is. People aren't brainless. They can decide for themselves should a People's Vote ever happen.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to that view.

However, I don't hold it. And I don't believe Corbyn's explanation.

But you believe Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

Sam Russell

PeadarCo wrote: »

Your post doesn't address any of the points that either myself or IamtheReign have made. The post is complete wishful thinking that shows no understanding of the points made. Brexiters have taken the exact same attitude who cares about the details we are the UK and that's all that matters. We can see where that wishful thinking has gotten them.

I do not accept that the concept is pie in the sky.

In 1927, the Irish Gov managed to get Ard na Crusha up and going (with the assistance of Siemens because the UK refused to help), and in the 1950s rolled out rural electrification. Look at how successful the IDA have been. These projects can be achieved.

Now, if your point is that the Labour Party are incapable of doing a pharma project of the scale needed, you may well be right. Nationalised industries do not have a good history in the UK.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Corbyn's neutrality is his best option given how split his voter base is. People aren't brainless. They can decide for themselves should a People's Vote ever happen.

Very true.

People aren't brainless. That's why Johnson is on 42 percent in the polls.

LeinsterDub

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Corbyn's neutrality is his best option given how split his voter base is. People aren't brainless. They can decide for themselves should a People's Vote ever happen.

Brexit is a you're either with us or your against us issue for an awful lot of people. It has such an impact it's hard to see how anyone can be neutral. It's not like he's being asked to chose between Chocolate or Strawberry ice cream

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Very true.

People aren't brainless. That's why Johnson is on 42 percent in the polls.

I can't see 42% resulting in a big enough majority for him though.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Corbyn's neutrality is his best option given how split his voter base is. People aren't brainless. They can decide for themselves should a People's Vote ever happen.

And this dynamic always existed from the start. Some percentage of the electorate in excess of 40% were leave voters so any labour leader, corbyn or otherwise, was going to have to find a way around that.

The caveats are leave voters might prioritise nhs or sonething else, at least a minority anyway. And also the level of rare or first time voters who won the brexit referendum - will they turn out in huge numbers for theelection? Didnt seem to in 2017 anyway.

quokula

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't see 42% resulting in a big enough majority for him though.

42% can net a fairly big majority under FPTP. Labour's 1997 landslide was achieved well over 400 seats with 43% of the vote.

On the other hand Theresa May lost her majority with 42% of the vote in 2017.

So much depends on what happens by constituency and how much the Labour / Lib Dem vote is split.

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

42% can net a fairly big majority under FPTP. Labour's 1997 landslide was achieved well over 400 seats with 43% of the vote.

On the other hand Theresa May lost her majority with 42% of the vote in 2017.

So much depends on what happens by constituency and how much the Labour / Lib Dem vote is split.

True but you need that vote to be quite spread out and this was before people split themselves into Remain and Leave camps. Theresa May won 42% of the vote and annihilated her own majority.

You are correct but I do not think 42% is enough to guarantee the passage of the deal and its organs.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't see 42% resulting in a big enough majority for him though.

According to the latest poll, Conservatives would harvest a majority of 48 seats.

And that's without the impending flow of Brexit Party candidates who are now quitting the election and asking their followers to back Boris.

Meanwhile, Labour drop to 232 seats and the Liberal Democrats trail behind with just 15 seats.

The poll puts the Conservatives in the lead with 42 per cent of the vote, leading the Labour Party by ten percentage points on 32 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are on 12 per cent.

If the parties were to achieve these vote shares at a General Election, it would result in Conservatives having a majority of 48 (Con 349, Lab 232, LD 15, SNP 31, Brex 0, PC 4, Grn 1) according to Electoral Calculus. The findings show the Tories are holding onto more of their 2017 voters than the Labour party (84 versus 68 per cent).

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't see 42% resulting in a big enough majority for him though.

With FPTP, it's not the 42%, but the gap to the next biggest party.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

According to the latest poll, Conservatives would harvest a majority of 48 seats.

And that's without the impending flow of Brexit Party candidates who are now quitting the election and asking their followers to back Boris.

Meanwhile, Labour drop to 232 seats and the Liberal Democrats trail behind with just 15 seats.

What difference are Brexit party MEP's supposed to make here?

48 seats isn't small but it's far from unassailable either.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What difference are Brexit party MEP's supposed to make here?

48 seats isn't small but it's far from unassailable either.

We're witnessing a phenomenon in which prominent Brexit Party members and MEPs are encouraging more voters to opt for the Conservative Party.

It's only a matter of time before this translates into extra seats for Boris re: marginal seats.

Don't be surprised if many MP candidates themselves "withdraw" and encourage voters to opt for their Conservative counterpart.

I disagree; I think 48 seats is an enormously powerful majority.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

We're witnessing a phenomenon in which prominent Brexit Party members and MEPs are encouraging more voters to opt for the Conservative Party.

It's only a matter of time before this translates into extra seats for Boris re: marginal seats.

Don't be surprised if many MP candidates themselves "withdraw" and encourage voters to opt for their Conservative counterpart.

How much influence do the Brexit party have though? Based on UKIP, close to none whatsoever.

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree; I think 48 seats is an enormously powerful majority.

It's still quite small in my opinion.

quokula

A 48 seat majority, having already purged the moderates out of the party, would be enough for them to comfortably get their Brexit plans through I think.

However with a week to go in campaigning, it's not an insurmountable task for other parties to flip 24 seats and get a hung parliament. I've read that a hung parliament is already within margin of error of current polls, albeit with a Tory majority clearly still more likely.

sid waddell

As far back as 2015, former BBC political editor Nick Robinson said that the BBC's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn was biased against him.

Robinson is no Labour supporter and The Spectator is no Labour-supporting publication.


https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/nick-robinson-tackles-anti-corbyn-bias-at-the-bbc/

Over the weekend the BBC’s former political editor confessed — in an interview in the Sunday Times — that he had written to several BBC colleagues over concerns that the corporation’s political coverage is biased against Jeremy Corbyn. When asked by Lynn Barber whether he was ‘shocked’ by the way the BBC ‘rubbish Jeremy Corbyn’, Robinson replied ‘yes’:

‘Yes. Oddly, although I was off work, I did drop a note to a few people after his first weekend saying this is really interesting and we owe it to the audience to sound as if we’re interested.’

Joe_ Public

When people keep coming out with these polls basically calling the election a done deal, they ought to really bear in mind the caveats the likes of John Custice and Chris Curtis of yougov present:

1. Tories need in the region of 7-8% lead to make a majority likely. A couple of points swing and we would be in hung parliament territory.

2. The tories vote could go up, but it's more likely they have squeezed the brexit vote as much as possible while labour still had potential to squeeze the vote both sides.

Thats their opinions, not necessarily mine. Perhaps the BP defections mean an update is required but those consequences might not be entirely clear yet.

ancapailldorcha

quokula wrote: »

A 48 seat majority, having already purged the moderates out of the party, would be enough for them to comfortably get their Brexit plans through I think.

However with a week to go in campaigning, it's not an insurmountable task for other parties to flip 24 seats and get a hung parliament. I've read that a hung parliament is already within margin of error of current polls, albeit with a Tory majority clearly still more likely.

Has he though? He's not led the party for 4 months. That's not a lot of time to organise a purge. I know that departing MP's will be replaced with loyalists but this doesn't seem widespread.

An Ciarraioch

Joe_ Public wrote: »

When people keep coming out with these polls basically calling the election a done deal, they ought to really bear in mind the caveats the likes of John Custice and Chris Curtis of yougov present:

1. Tories need in the region of 7-8% lead to make a majority likely. A couple of points swing and we would be in hung parliament territory.

2. The tories vote could go up, but it's more likely they have squeezed the brexit vote as much as possible while labour still had potential to squeeze the vote both sides.

Thats their opinions, not necessarily mine. Perhaps the BP defections mean an update is required but those consequences might not be entirely clear yet.

The problem here, however, is that the polls since Monday have actually seen Labour falling, even if occasionally accompanied by Tory declines - a 20-40 seat Johnson majority now looks increasingly probable, unless the poll samples and/or turnout expectations are wildly out of kilter.

Joe_ Public

robinph wrote: »

It's not the lack of a coherent message, it's the lack of people having the required attention span to listen to it.

Lack of a snappy three word slogan that means nothing is the problem.

Just going back on this point. I'm just wondering do slogans actually work outside of extremes. Although not quite a slogan in itself, the lib dems revoke message was, in part, designed to offer the kind of clarity that GBD was offering on the other side. And it didnt work, the target audience didnt respond to it.

Whatever else its faults, i think labours campaign has stayed relatively honourable, without recourse to ad hominem attacks, widespread dirty tricks or cheap tacky slogans. I dont believe they should deviate from that.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The problem here, however, is that the polls since Monday have actually seen Labour falling, even if occasionally accompanied by Tory declines - a 20-40 seat Johnson majority now looks increasingly probable, unless the poll samples and/or turnout expectations are wildly out of kilter.

I honestly don't follow all the polls so closely so you could be right. It is of course very precariously poised for the opposition, i dont doubt that for a second. All the same, the polls I've seen have tory leads between 9 and 11. It looks big but is still only a couple of points swing away from hung parliament territory so there is some hope to cling to. I wouldn't be willing to call it myself yet anyway.

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

unless the poll samples and/or turnout expectations are wildly out of kilter.

This is still possible, but it could, of course, be in either direction.

Labour supporters and Remainers tend to point to 2017, when most polls, basically everyone except YouGov, overestimated the Tories likely seat numbers, but in 2015 most polls had Labour level or a bit ahead of the Tories until the final week, and then the Tories went and got a majority.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I honestly don't follow all the polls so closely so you could be right. It is of course very precariously poised for the opposition, i dont doubt that for a second. All the same, the polls I've seen have tory leads between 9 and 11. It looks big but is still only a couple of points swing away from hung parliament territory so there is some hope to cling to. I wouldn't be willing to call it myself yet anyway.

You're very casual with throwing numbers around.

"Only a couple of points" is actually a relatively major swing.

So, whilst you are phrasing it as if it's something highly likely, the polls suggest otherwise. If anything, the latest polls - as others here have already stated - are widening the Conservative lead.

Based on that trend, it's even less likely that what you're proposing is going to translate into political reality.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're very casual with throwing numbers around.

"Only a couple of points" is actually a relatively major swing.

So, whilst you are phrasing it as if it's something highly likely, the polls suggest otherwise. If anything, the latest polls - as others here have already stated - are widening the Conservative lead.

Based on that trend, it's even less likely that what you're proposing is going to translate into political reality.

A couple of points swing is labour gaining a single point from the tories. Which would give them an 8 point lead on the basis of the latest poll published here. That poll has both conservatives and labour dropping a point.

Anyway I'm not going to labour it, no pun intended, as you are clearly a much bigger fan of polling than me.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A couple of points swing is labour gaining a single point from the tories. Which would give them an 8 point lead on the basis of the latest poll published here. That poll has both conservatives and labour dropping a point.

Anyway I'm not going to labour it, no pun intended, as you are clearly a much bigger fan of polling than me.

It's also inside the margin for error in those polls. Plus or minus 2% is pretty standard.

Rjd2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What is it you think Cummings has done? To me this entire campaign has been a non event. Labour have been useless, Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot by saying they'd revoke and as soon as Brexit Party bottled it the chance of any moving and mixing disappeared.

Even f the Tories get a 150 seat majority, it won't be Cummings handiwork.

Its Isaac Levido who is running this not Dom, so Isaac deserves the plaudits/insults whatever etc.


https://www.ft.com/content/8610dc48-0148-11ea-b7bc-f3fa4e77dd47

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

You're very casual with throwing numbers around.

"Only a couple of points" is actually a relatively major swing.

So, whilst you are phrasing it as if it's something highly likely, the polls suggest otherwise. If anything, the latest polls - as others here have already stated - are widening the Conservative lead.

Based on that trend, it's even less likely that what you're proposing is going to translate into political reality.

It's not a "major swing". To get a hung parliament, Labour don't need to gain the full 9-11% on the Tories. Around 6% would do it [so a 3-5%] swing which is in no way massive given it's a week away.