General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

robinph

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Probably a lot of contenders but am confident we have reached a low point of the campaign, possibly year. From the party some of its defenders still see as a moderate, centrist right bunch. Heard this candidate give a statement to bbc saying she was taken out of context, apologising if caused offence etc. Hastings is close enough, labour within reach there.

https://twitter.com/MayaAnneEvans/status/1202747625382064129?s=20

From reading a bit more on it, the article she shared was about having an exemption for the minimum wage so that people who would otherwise not be able to get work at all due to their disability and so they could be able to "work" as part of the therapy. Of course allowing an exemption like that would open things up to the potential for massive abuse of the system and people, but it's not a totally stupid idea. The original article I believe was by a mother whose kid had severe learning disabilities and so couldn't do any actual work that would be able to earn the minimum wage, but she wanted to be able to have them "work" and so feel more useful for themselves as part of the kids therapy.

But for the sake of the country it's actually better that another Tory takes the hit on the bad press and hopefully doesn't win that seat, so ignore all that background.

ancapailldorcha

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i believe if Boris is returned with a strong enough majority, he is more than capable of going back to the EU, ripping up the WA, dumping it and saying to them, "ok let's start again!"

and his supporters will love it.

What does that mean? The EU is happy with the WA. They will only return to the table if he is going to make concessions. His supporters might love it but it's just meaningless posturing.

Zubeneschamali

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i believe if Boris is returned with a strong enough majority, he is more than capable of going back to the EU, ripping up the WA, dumping it and saying to them, "ok let's start again!"

I can't see the EU wasting any more time negotiating with a Tory government - their attitude will be pass the WA or crash out. I don't know if there will be enough anti-No Deal Tories left in Westminster after this election to stop him.

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Probably a lot of contenders but am confident we have reached a low point of the campaign, possibly year.

Hmmmm, don't forget Mogg saying the Grenfell Tower victims lacked common sense, the Holocaust denial, the call for forced labour camps etc. etc.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Could they have done more to get across the message that a vote for tories is a vote for no deal brexit? I'm not even sure enough voters would respond but it could have been hammered over more and more. Just they havent landed the killer blow yet and doesnt seem to exist a tipping point where johnson self immolates. NHS was obvious and well executed plan of attack but maybe not enough on its own.

the Tories have put a deal to the house of commons four times now, each time it has been voted down. How does this equate to them wanting a no deal Brexit?

Oh, sorry I forgot, Jeremy is going to get a new super duper all singing all dancing deal from the eu :rolleyes:

If Labour hadn't tried to bring down the government and got on with actually doing their job and acting in the best interests of the country, the UK wouldn't be in this mess.

Corbyn needs to be less idealistic and more pragmatic.

robinph

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i believe if Boris is returned with a strong enough majority, he is more than capable of going back to the EU, ripping up the WA, dumping it and saying to them, "ok let's start again!"

and his supporters will love it.

To which the EU will say, "Here you go, we saved it and made you another copy, sign here, revoke, or sod off".

Joe_ Public

robinph wrote: »

From reading a bit more on it, the article she shared was about having an exemption for the minimum wage so that people who would otherwise not be able to get work at all due to their disability and so they could be able to "work" as part of the therapy. Of course allowing an exemption like that would open things up to the potential for massive abuse of the system and people, but it's not a totally stupid idea. The original article I believe was by a mother whose kid had severe learning disabilities and so couldn't do any actual work that would be able to earn the minimum wage, but she wanted to be able to have them "work" and so feel more useful for themselves as part of the kids therapy.

But for the sake of the country it's actually better that another Tory takes the hit on the bad press and hopefully doesn't win that seat, so ignore all that background.

I mean, it is fair enough to refer to the spectator article she was referring to. Dodgy ground where i wouldnt have been going, but ok. But then to say its acceptable to pay disabled employees lower than minimum wage because they mightnt "understand money" is way out of order imo. Disabled people are treated very badly in the uk, that doesnt seem any reasonable way of showing empathy to me.

sid waddell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can't see the EU wasting any more time negotiating with a Tory government - their attitude will be pass the WA or crash out. I don't know if there will be enough anti-No Deal Tories left in Westminster after this election to stop him.

The problem will come when the Brits try to wangle out of the the Withdrawal Agreement after it has passed.

It could easily end up in No Deal at the end of 2020 and the Tories are crazy enough to do it, the Tory media would be behind them and there are enough crazy think tanks out there to manipulate public opinion into the scenario where it enough of the public demands it happen.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

the Tories have put a deal to the house of commons four times now, each time it has been voted down. How does this equate to them wanting a no deal Brexit?

Oh, sorry I forgot, Jeremy is going to get a new super duper all singing all dancing deal from the eu :rolleyes:

If Labour hadn't tried to bring down the government and got on with actually doing their job and acting in the best interests of the country, the UK wouldn't be in this mess.

Corbyn needs to be less idealistic and more pragmatic.

Because i dont believe even for a millisecond that there is a snowballs chance in hell they can do a trade deal by the end of next year, despite new tory lance forman mep reassuring us yesterday that they could be negotiating deals with the eu, US, Japan, Australia, NZ, all "simultaneously'. Just like that.

But....but....corbyn etc

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

the Tories have put a deal to the house of commons four times now, each time it has been voted down. How does this equate to them wanting a no deal Brexit?

Oh, sorry I forgot, Jeremy is going to get a new super duper all singing all dancing deal from the eu :rolleyes:

If Labour hadn't tried to bring down the government and got on with actually doing their job and acting in the best interests of the country, the UK wouldn't be in this mess.

Corbyn needs to be less idealistic and more pragmatic.

Oppositions are supposed to oppose the government. Brexit is the Conservative party's disaster capitalist project. Why on earth would any opposition party support that?

Letwin_Larry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What does that mean? The EU is happy with the WA. They will only return to the table if he is going to make concessions. His supporters might love it but it's just meaningless posturing.

of course. but this is a guy who has been indulged all his life and who doesn't really care.
Brexit has been a humiliation for the nationalist rump of the Tory party. the WA is written testament to that. i can hear the Tory faithful urging Boris to "stick it to 'em foreigners".
"they dont like it up 'em you know"

probably wont happen, but i wouldn't be shocked if it did. do you trust Boris?

Zubeneschamali

sid waddell wrote: »

It could easily end up in No Deal at the end of 2020

Yes, they have a deadline mid-year where they must decide whether to ask for an extension beyond 2020. Johnson has already promised publicly not to ask. No-one believes he can negotiate a deal in less than a year, so No Deal Jan 2021 seems very likely.

Will the NI arrangements survive No Deal? I think they can, since most people in NI want them to.

robinph

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I mean, it is fair enough to refer to the spectator article she was referring to. Dodgy ground where i wouldnt have been going, but ok. But then to say its acceptable to pay disabled employees lower than minimum wage because they mightnt "understand money" is way out of order imo. Disabled people are treated very badly in the uk, that doesnt seem any reasonable way of showing empathy to me.

Absolutely, something she should have steered well clear of.

It is something that is worth discussing in terms of methods of working with severely disabled people, but not something that you should be trying to defend in a hustings like that.

ancapailldorcha

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course. but this is a guy who has been indulged all his life and who doesn't really care.
Brexit has been a humiliation for the nationalist rump of the Tory party. the WA is written testament to that. i can hear the Tory faithful urging Boris to "stick it to 'em foreigners".
"they dont like it up 'em you know"

probably wont happen, but i wouldn't be shocked if it did. do you trust Boris?

It doesn't matter if it happens. Why are you suggesting this? Brexit has conclusively shown how weak the UK is on the world and European stages. An Etonian posh lad having a tantrum will not alter this.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

the Tories have put a deal to the house of commons four times now, each time it has been voted down. How does this equate to them wanting a no deal Brexit?

Oh, sorry I forgot, Jeremy is going to get a new super duper all singing all dancing deal from the eu :rolleyes:

If Labour hadn't tried to bring down the government and got on with actually doing their job and acting in the best interests of the country, the UK wouldn't be in this mess.

Corbyn needs to be less idealistic and more pragmatic.

Boris Johnson's deal wasn't voted down, he decided to dissolve parliament rather than subject it to scrutiny. He had previously voted against May's deal (and for it on another occasion)

Labour have continually acted in the national interest by ensuring the Brexit deal was scrutinised and voting down anything that would do severe harm to the country.

Labour aren't promising any concessions from the EU, they're promising to drop Theresa May's red lines, something the EU is in favour of, and come to a closer agreement that is in everyone's best interest.

Corbyn has been the only pragmatic leader of a major party when it comes to Brexit, recognising the 50/50 split in the country, with ideologues on either side in the Tories and Lib Dems trying to play the sides against each other.

Letwin_Larry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it happens. Why are you suggesting this? Brexit has conclusively shown how weak the UK is on the world and European stages. An Etonian posh lad having a tantrum will not alter this.

i appreciate it is only speculation on my part, and will probably never transpire.
even if it did the EU will simply say "Bon Voyage!

but i think it matters because the UK is on the cusp of electing a PM who cannot/should not be trusted.

Zubeneschamali

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

do you trust Boris?

No, of course not. But what do you think he could possibly gain by tearing up the WA?

He knows he can't get a better WA, so his only other option is No Deal.

ArmaniJeanss

IpsosMori

Previous figures are 21/11.

CON: 44% (-)
LAB: 32% (+4)
LDEM: 13% (-3)
GRN: 3% (-)
BREX: 2% (-1)

Labour not making any inroads into Conservatives, just eating up the LibDem vote.

Leroy42

robinph wrote: »

Absolutely, something she should have steered well clear of.

It is something that is worth discussing in terms of methods of working with severely disabled people, but not something that you should be trying to defend in a hustings like that.

The issue is not whether there is a case for some sort of publicly funded scheme to help companies hire disabled people which doesn't unduly hinder their ability to operate, something along the lines of subsidised payments, but what she said goes to her thinking on the subject.

She doesn't think that disabled people should be paid a proper wage, not because they work less for example, but because they don't understand money! That shows exactly what she thinks of them, and therefore she shes them as a burden and not worth other people.

Its actually quite disgusting what she said. Imagine if she said it about people of colour, or if a man said it about women!

Joe_ Public

robinph wrote: »

Absolutely, something she should have steered well clear of.

It is something that is worth discussing in terms of methods of working with severely disabled people, but not something that you should be trying to defend in a hustings like that.

Admittedly i dont know a lot about that tory candidate but it doesnt immediately become apparent to me that she is approaching the issue with any great amount of compassion. I have no great insight into it, but did read a good book by Frances Ryan a couple of weeks back that detailed just how hard austerity has hit disabled people. Made me angry reading it, same way i feel right now reading Amelia Gentlemans book on windrush.

Johnson has it in the bag. With many polls showing 44%, a gigantic 12-point lead over Labour.

It. is. not. possible. -- in a Brexit Election -- for Corbyn to climb the electoral mountain he now faces.

If it were a standard election, yes, as Corbyn could pummel Johnson on policy etc. But, ultimately, this election is about the end-game of the Brexit question. Despite all the humbug about the NHS being "up for sale", and all the nonsense about "free everything" from Labour, it hasn't gained them an inch.

Corbyn can't complain tonight about avoiding debate/scrutiny. He avoided the ITV debate the other week, so clearly he - like Johnson - is in favour of avoiding some debates/scrutiny over others.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1202906042759286790

Sir Oxman

C4 News appear to have dropped a massive clanger which will be seized upon by the Tories and IMO, rightly so.
I think they've removed the video clip of Johnson this morning but the link below appears to have it still.

Their subtitles have him saying
'I'm in favour of having people of colour come to this country but I think we should have it democratically controlled'

The audio alone and his mouth movements are
'I'm in favour of having people of talent come to this country but I think we should have it democratically controlled'

Uh-oh
(PS most of the other stuff he said is rubbish and untrue in the clip...)

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1202907966187429888?s=20

Sir Oxman

Sir Oxman wrote: »

C4 News appear to have dropped a massive clanger which will be seized upon by the Tories and IMO, rightly so.
I think they've removed the video clip of Johnson this morning but the link below appears to have it still.

Yes, and they've issued an apology; absolutely disgraceful stuff to portray the Prime Minister as some sort of racist.

Is there any depth of bias to which Channel 4 will not sink?

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1202913424243601408

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have confirmed that Johnson will not be doing an Andrew Neil interview:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1202881993618444288

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson has it in the bag. With many polls showing 44%, a gigantic 12-point lead over Labour.

It. is. not. possible. -- in a Brexit Election -- for Corbyn to climb the electoral mountain he now faces.

If it were a standard election, yes, as Corbyn could pummel Johnson on policy etc. But, ultimately, this election is about the end-game of the Brexit question. Despite all the humbug about the NHS being "up for sale", and all the nonsense about "free everything" from Labour, it hasn't gained them an inch.

Corbyn can't complain tonight about avoiding debate/scrutiny. He avoided the ITV debate the other week, so clearly he - like Johnson - is in favour of avoiding some debates/scrutiny over others.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1202906042759286790

It's getting harder and harder to see a viable method for Labour to overcome the gap. Is it in the bag? God no, anything can happen on election day. It's unlikely Corbyn can close the gap but not implausible or impossible. It's far from "in the bag". That type of thinking will worry Tory HQ as it means tory voters will be less likely to bother going out to vote.

Skipping an ITV group debate and skipping a 1 on 1 interview with Andrew Neil are not equal to each other. I think my main issue with your points are that you view everything as binary. The weak points in the Labour manifesto mean he is lying and hence, him and Boris are the same. Corbyn skipping a debate with several people is equal to Boris skipping a 1 on 1 debate (of which every prime minister has taken part in according to Neil). A newspaper article attacking the Tories unjustifiably is equal to the raft of anti-Labour press [of which Loughborough have clearly shown the scale of anti-Labour v anti-Tory in the press]. The world isn't binary. Actions are not binary. It's a sliding scale.

boggerman1

Listening to James O’Brien today and the inheritant racism is unbelievable.the lies don’t matter anymore and it’s English nationalism on full display.ok we might laugh away at the rabbit hole they are stuck in but it’s sad to see a once great country being reduced to an asylum for the delusional.i hope the tories get a whopping majority to fully own the mess unleashed.

Sir Oxman

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, and they've issued an apology; absolutely disgraceful stuff to portray the Prime Minister as some sort of racist.

Is there any depth of bias to which Channel 4 will not sink?

I don't find C4 News biased to be honest - they hammer Labour reps, LD reps, Green reps as much as Tories.


But that is a clanger, no doubt!

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

It. is. not. possible. -- in a Brexit Election -- for Corbyn to climb the electoral mountain he now faces.

WHo. Are. You. Trying. To. Convince. -- you seem very heavily invested for an election in a different country.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

It's getting harder and harder to see a viable method for Labour to overcome the gap. Is it in the bag? God no, anything can happen on election day. It's unlikely Corbyn can close the gap but not implausible or impossible. It's far from "in the bag". That type of thinking will worry Tory HQ as it means tory voters will be less likely to bother going out to vote.

Skipping an ITV group debate and skipping a 1 on 1 interview with Andrew Neil are not equal to each other. I think my main issue with your points are that you view everything as binary. The weak points in the Labour manifesto mean he is lying and hence, him and Boris are the same. Corbyn skipping a debate with several people is equal to Boris skipping a 1 on 1 debate (of which every prime minister has taken part in according to Neil). A newspaper article attacking the Tories unjustifiably is equal to the raft of anti-Labour press [of which Loughborough have clearly shown the scale of anti-Labour v anti-Tory in the press]. The world isn't binary. Actions are not binary. It's a sliding scale.

This election isn't about traditional Labour or Tory voters, though. It's about Brexit -- and that's what will mobilise Leave voters far, far more (who have been actively betrayed for 3 years) than Second Referendumers or people wanting to vote for Corbyn with all the racist and anti-UK baggage that has weighed down his campaign. Again, if this were a standard election, I could understand your use of the words "Tory voters" etc., but it isn't - it's about Brexit and so the dynamics of this election are very different to elections of the past.

Second, I don't view it as binary. A multi-party debate that gathers more viewers is perhaps more important than a one-on-one with Neil that attracts less viewers. It depends what way you cut it. I would view the multi-party debate as far more important than the Neil interview. That's just my perspective though.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have confirmed that Johnson will not be doing an Andrew Neil interview:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1202881993618444288

Was wondering last night what tack they would use to weasel out of the neil interview and thought they might do better than this. Apparently we need something better than the age old trusted practice of politicians setting out their plans and then having them face vigorous scrutiny on a one to one basis. We've all seen those alternatives hsvent we? Its called facebook.

quokula

bren2001 wrote: »

It's getting harder and harder to see a viable method for Labour to overcome the gap. Is it in the bag? God no, anything can happen on election day. It's unlikely Corbyn can close the gap but not implausible or impossible. It's far from "in the bag". That type of thinking will worry Tory HQ as it means tory voters will be less likely to bother going out to vote.

Skipping an ITV group debate and skipping a 1 on 1 interview with Andrew Neil are not equal to each other. I think my main issue with your points are that you view everything as binary. The weak points in the Labour manifesto mean he is lying and hence, him and Boris are the same. Corbyn skipping a debate with several people is equal to Boris skipping a 1 on 1 debate (of which every prime minister has taken part in according to Neil). A newspaper article attacking the Tories unjustifiably is equal to the raft of anti-Labour press [of which Loughborough have clearly shown the scale of anti-Labour v anti-Tory in the press]. The world isn't binary. Actions are not binary. It's a sliding scale.

Also, Boris skipped the same debate Corbyn did. It was part of a pattern of Boris avoiding scrutiny, whereas it was a single outlier for Corbyn. The view from Labour was obviously that there was no point in him turning up if his opponent didn't. It would give the right wing press opportunities to publish photos of Corbyn debating against a third tier Tory MP to imply that that's his level.