General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Leroy42

The very fact that there is going to be no movement from Corbyn pointing out, clearly in apparently official government documents, that there will indeed to a 'border' between NI and GB (although it is pretty obvious within the WA) just goes to show exactly how English centric Brexit has become.

How anyone who claims to stand for the union, which btw is every Tory, can accept this is beyond me. But only are they willing to accept it, they actually now want it.

Brexit, whilst I certainly didn't and I suspect most others didn't either, appreciate just how perfectly accurate the name is. This is about Britain leaving the EU, not the UK.

I am surprised that the DUP have been so quiet about all this. They seem to have just accepted it. Seems they only thing about advertising in London papers during refs, during a Brexit election they are happy to sit back and just be quiet.

robinph

The problems with bias being built into the AI machines that people don't catch.

In order for automatic subtitles to be created they have to make certain assumptions on the structure of the language that people will use and the phrase "people of color" is going to be far more commonly uttered in whatever the AI was trained with and is so what the AI was programmed to hear when it recognised the words "people of ???" it just assumed they said color, but then anglicised it with a U.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

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 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.

My point really lies in the fact that if people who are going to vote for Boris believe it's in the bag, they are less likely to vote. That thinking will worry HQ.

I think sitting down one on one and having your points scrutinized over 30 minutes with nowhere to hide or nobody else to hide behind. Giving the interviewer the option of not letting you off the hook and give non-substantive answers is far more important than a 1 hour debate where your talking time will be 60 minutes divided by the number of candidate.

I actually have no issue with Boris skipping the interviews. I do think it's wrong but this is politics and he has to do whatever he thinks is best to win the election. I also think it's wrong to equate Boris and Corbyn on this. As pointed out, Boris also skipped that debate. Boris is actively avoiding scrutiny. Corbyn isn't.

Leroy42

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.

They don't need to overcome the gap, just to narrow it. The only way, IMO, is for them to take votes back off the LD's, same as the tory's have done to the BP.

If this is really the Brexit election, then I would expect remainers to start to shirt towards Labour as we get closer to election day. It seems that Brexiteers are more than happy to accept anything as long as they Brexit, and whilst remainers have been much slower to give in on any standards or ideals they have I think they may start to accept that Labour, so all their faults, are the lessor of two evils.

If they can get 5% of so then Johnson will fail to get a majority, and ultimately fail.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

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.

So, why did Corbyn turn up to the Channel 4 interview then, in full knowledge that Johnson would not be appearing?

More abject nonsense from Labour HQ.

bren2001 wrote: »

My point really lies in the fact that if people who are going to vote for Boris believe it's in the bag, they are less likely to vote. That thinking will worry HQ.

I think sitting down one on one and having your points scrutinized over 30 minutes with nowhere to hide or nobody else to hide behind. Giving the interviewer the option of not letting you off the hook and give non-substantive answers is far more important than a 1 hour debate where your talking time will be 60 minutes divided by the number of candidate.

I take the opposite view.

Pro-Brexit voters are more passionate and obsessed with getting Brexit done and delivering on the 2016 vote.

It wouldn't even matter if Neil questioned Boris on 50,000 nurses, or hospital upgrades, because this has been done to death by Marr, and a whole host of other interviews / newspapers.

People will still go out and vote for Johnson regardless of these details/scrutinies.

In fact, I would add that it plays into the Johnson narrative of David versus the Establishment Goliath.

bren2001

Leroy42 wrote: »

They don't need to overcome the gap, just to narrow it. The only way, IMO, is for them to take votes back off the LD's, same as the tory's have done to the BP.

If this is really the Brexit election, then I would expect remainers to start to shirt towards Labour as we get closer to election day. It seems that Brexiteers are more than happy to accept anything as long as they Brexit, and whilst remainers have been much slower to give in on any standards or ideals they have I think they may start to accept that Labour, so all their faults, are the lessor of two evils.

If they can get 5% of so then Johnson will fail to get a majority, and ultimately fail.

Oh I agree. I don't quite mean close the gap in terms of winning a majority, I just mean close the gap to avoid a Tory majority. I agree, the key is getting votes of the Lib Dems and vice versa in close constituencies. It's absolute scandalous that they have not brokered some form of agreement on this but that's Labour shots itself in the foot nearly every election.

Leroy42

bren2001 wrote: »

I actually have no issue with Boris skipping the interviews. I do think it's wrong but this is politics and he has to do whatever he thinks is best to win the election. I also think it's wrong to equate Boris and Corbyn on this. As pointed out, Boris also skipped that debate. Boris is actively avoiding scrutiny. Corbyn isn't.

The bigger issue is that Johnson is clearly unable to deal with difficult situations. He struggles to deal with questions, with people prepared to question him rather than just laugh along with him.

That doesn't bode well for the upcoming trade negotiations. Of course he won't actually be in the talks, but how is he going to deal with the inevitable blockage points.

Let us remember, it was basically Leo that dug him out of the whole he had dug himself. Are other leaders going to be so accommodating? And how will Johnson deal with the civil servants when they tell him that the other side won't budge? He has shown no ability to be able to deal with that.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

So, why did Corbyn turn up to the Channel 4 interview then, in full knowledge that Johnson would not be appearing?

More abject nonsense from Labour HQ.

Really , they knew. So when exactly did Johnson state that he was refusing to do the interview? Because according to the BBC they hadn't refused as talks were on going.

Please show evidence that Labour knew that Johnson would not be appearing

Joe_ Public

Leroy42 wrote: »

They don't need to overcome the gap, just to narrow it. The only way, IMO, is for them to take votes back off the LD's, same as the tory's have done to the BP.

If this is really the Brexit election, then I would expect remainers to start to shirt towards Labour as we get closer to election day. It seems that Brexiteers are more than happy to accept anything as long as they Brexit, and whilst remainers have been much slower to give in on any standards or ideals they have I think they may start to accept that Labour, so all their faults, are the lessor of two evils.

If they can get 5% of so then Johnson will fail to get a majority, and ultimately fail.

It could make it tight but without clawing back some of the ground in Wales and the north of england they've lost to tories, it will be a struggle imo.

But thats far from impossible. It's one thing for a lifelong labour voter to insist he or she is going to switch, another thing to go into ballot box and actually mark that x. Some will but not all i think. Others might just stay at home which is second best thing for labour.

Undecideds still a big factor too. If haven't already made their minds up to desert lsbour with all the crap being thrown, then I'm not sure they will over the next week.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

So, why did Corbyn turn up to the Channel 4 interview then, in full knowledge that Johnson would not be appearing?

More abject nonsense from Labour HQ.



I take the opposite view.

Pro-Brexit voters are more passionate and obsessed with getting Brexit done and delivering on the 2016 vote.

It wouldn't even matter if Neil questioned Boris on 50,000 nurses, or hospital upgrades, because this has been done to death by Marr, and a whole host of other interviews / newspapers.

People will still go out and vote for Johnson regardless of these details/scrutinies.

In fact, I would add that it plays into the Johnson narrative of David versus the Establishment Goliath.

Marr is not equal to Neil. The Marr interview was after a terrorist incident and is an interview every Prime Minister should partake in. It shouldn't have been allowed to devolve into an Election interview. You should not take advantage of such atrocities to drum up support in an election, it's morally wrong (in my opinion). Nor should Boris's speech at NATO have touched on Labour at all. That's an abuse of the position of being Prime Minister. The Marr interview in no way makes up for the Neil interview.

Johnson is the establishment. The Tory machine has done a good job of masquerading that. I do agree, these interviews have far less weight than some people think. If someone is voting for Boris for Brexit, their mind is made up. However, I also think that's irrelevant as I believe it's wrong that Boris is avoiding them regardless of the impact they would/would not have.

Joe_ Public

Corbyn turned up for the C4 debate because it was about the climate and he cares enough about it that the labour pledges on the environment are said by many to outstrip even the greens. Simple really.

Sir Oxman

robinph wrote: »

The problems with bias being built into the AI machines that people don't catch.

In order for automatic subtitles to be created they have to make certain assumptions on the structure of the language that people will use and the phrase "people of color" is going to be far more commonly uttered in whatever the AI was trained with and is so what the AI was programmed to hear when it recognised the words "people of ???" it just assumed they said color, but then anglicised it with a U.

These are less than 1 minute to probably 3 minute clips.
Surely organisations like C4, BBC etc take the short time to check them before they post?

Joe_ Public

5 million views for Andrew Neil monologue. 5 million and counting!!

I dont know what that means exactly. It is an astonishing figure, though.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

So, why did Corbyn turn up to the Channel 4 interview then, in full knowledge that Johnson would not be appearing?

More abject nonsense from Labour HQ.

The Channel 4 debate was specifically dedicated to the climate emergency, which every party should be treating as the most important issue of our time but has unfortunately been overlooked for most of the campaign. To not turn up would have been enormously disrespectful. Farage and Johnson were rightfully empty chaired for showing a complete disregard for the future of the planet, and the Tory's stunt of sending Michael Gove backfired.

The ITV debate was just another debate, but with Johnson being replaced by a backbench Tory few people have even heard of. There was no reason for Corbyn to turn up to debate with him.

In any case Johnson has now agreed to turn up for an ITV debate (perhaps in exchange for the softball interview and publicity they gave him with Schofield and Holly Willoughby) where Corbyn will be happy to debate with him.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

5 million views for Andrew Neil monologue. 5 million and counting!!

I dont know what that means exactly. It is an astonishing figure, though.

It would have been better in my opinion if he'd done it first and then had it out of the way for it to be forgotten about. Now, it's become more prominent that he's scared to do it, much more so than it would have been even if it were a total car crash.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It would have been better in my opinion if he'd done it first and then had it out of the way for it to be forgotten about. Now, it's become more prominent that he's scared to do it, much more so than it would have been even if it were a total car crash.

Undoubtedly yes. But i guess they didnt foresee what was going to come out of it, or at least the consequences. Suppose they gambled a bit on it and hard to say exactly, but there is the chance it is backfiring with real and potentially significant effects.

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

5 million views for Andrew Neil monologue. 5 million and counting!!

I dont know what that means exactly. It is an astonishing figure, though.

I suspect it's just getting shared around various progressive echo chambers where everyone nods in agreement but few of the would-be Tory voters who might have tuned in to an actual interview on the BBC and seen him called out on his lies will have picked it up.

LuckyLloyd

The glee on display here is quite galling but hey ho. From an Irish / EU perspective a Boris Johnson majority provides clarity on the first phase of Brexit. We can now move forward to the next phase where the deck is even more heavily stacked in favour of the EU.

Meanwhile, people in Britain who are not racists; do not hate poor people and have not succumbed to unicorns and fantasies about economics will simply have to take solace from the fact that this Conservative government will fully own what is coming, and when it happens hopefully the working class most harshly affected by Brexit and austerity can be won back again.

Corbyn is 70 and can move to the side having never compromised on his principles. Labour will re - emerge in a new form of Blairism and be ready in a few years to take advantage of the Conservatives being made to own Brexit, economic stagnation and the poverty that goes with it.

There is a real desire for change in British society, there can be no denying that. “Brexit” has been packaged as the change required, successfully sold as an easy answer to reclaim the past. Corbyn has produced two manifestos that offer real substantive change but it is yet another victory for the real power base in UK society. How many lads from the debating society in Eton do the UK populace have to run through before they realise it’s not in their interest to keep electing them?

splinter65

Joe_ Public wrote: »

5 million views for Andrew Neil monologue. 5 million and counting!!

I dont know what that means exactly. It is an astonishing figure, though.

What you don’t know is how many of the viewers said “oh **** off neil you pompous tight arsed Scottish git!” when the clip was over...

LuckyLloyd

quokula wrote: »

I suspect it's just getting shared around various progressive echo chambers where everyone nods in agreement but few of the would-be Tory voters who might have tuned in to an actual interview on the BBC and seen him called out on his lies will have picked it up.

Again, not reported by the Telegraph. Nor is his interview with Farage. Did not happen, does not exist. They obviously took their favourite bits from Corbyn, Sturgeon and Swinson though.

This type of media bias is powerful and impactful and has played a key role in producing an ever poorer and more divided UK. Well done I suppose.

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

I suspect it's just getting shared around various progressive echo chambers where everyone nods in agreement but few of the would-be Tory voters who might have tuned in to an actual interview on the BBC and seen him called out on his lies will have picked it up.

Could be, dont know tbh. If it was 1m or just 2m I'd say that was likely the case, but 5m in 16 hours is just way too much to be dismissed as an echo chamber imo. What will be the final mark before polling day? Might only make a small difference, but cant do any damage anyway.

splinter65

There’s still another week to go. A lot can happen and does happen in a week. There’s the q and a tonight, that might go badly for either man.

Joe_ Public

splinter65 wrote: »

What you don’t know is how many of the viewers said “oh **** off neil you pompous tight arsed Scottish git!” when the clip was over...

Fair point but they're just the unturnables anyway. Its the ones in the middle you need to be thinking about.

sid waddell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The glee on display here is quite galling but hey ho. From an Irish / EU perspective a Boris Johnson majority provides clarity on the first phase of Brexit. We can now move forward to the next phase where the deck is even more heavily stacked in favour of the EU.

Meanwhile, people in Britain who are not racists; do not hate poor people and have not succumbed to unicorns and fantasies about economics will simply have to take solace from the fact that this Conservative government will fully own what is coming, and when it happens hopefully the working class most harshly affected by Brexit and austerity can be won back again.

Corbyn is 70 and can move to the side having never compromised on his principles. Labour will re - emerge in a new form of Blairism and be ready in a few years to take advantage of the Conservatives being made to own Brexit, economic stagnation and the poverty that goes with it.

There is a real desire for change in British society, there can be no denying that. “Brexit” has been packaged as the change required, successfully sold as an easy answer to reclaim the past. Corbyn has produced two manifestos that offer real substantive change but it is yet another victory for the real power base in UK society. How many lads from the debating society in Eton do the UK populace have to run through before they realise it’s not in their interest to keep electing them?

There is a real desire for change in US society, the Trump presidency has objectively been a total disaster, and yet, Trump winning again is a real possibility - and that's before we even get to the real possibility of the election being actually rigged in his favour.

Right-wingers have the media in their pocket and they will always find a way to change the narrative to make them the victim - it's easy to see how they will do this over the next five years, when Brexit is the slow car crash it inevitably will be.

It will be the fault of the EU, the fault of immigrants, the fault of "p'lih'ical c'rectniss", the fault of "the left", the fault of the judiciary, the fault of everybody except those whose fault it actually is.

And we'll wonder how Johnson, or Mogg, or Mercer, whoever it is, conned everybody again.

The belief in sections of the left that "next time will be different" is touching, and pretty kuch always wrong. Even if it is different electorally, by then, the real damage to British society will already be done.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

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

what?

no one has even started to discuss the trade deal yet.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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?

err, because the Labour party voted in favour of holding the referendum and then voted in favour of acting on the result of that referendum and triggering article 50.

quokula wrote: »

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.

ok, Parliament has voted it down three times. The Tories have still tried to get a withdrawal in place. How does that mean a Tory majority would mean a no deal Brexit?

quokula wrote: »

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.

Corbyn has consitently sat on the fence and done what he has done his entire political career, voted against everything. He needs to cop on to the fact that he is now a party leader and not president of the local student union.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The glee on display here is quite galling but hey ho. From an Irish / EU perspective a Boris Johnson majority provides clarity on the first phase of Brexit. We can now move forward to the next phase where the deck is even more heavily stacked in favour of the EU.

Yeah. It's mad that the "Get Brexit Done" mantra is so effective when all it does is hit the start button but I suppose that's just testament to the state of political discourse here. Let's take back control by handing all of the negotiating leverage to Brussels with the UK having no say whatsoever in the matter.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meanwhile, people in Britain who are not racists; do not hate poor people and have not succumbed to unicorns and fantasies about economics will simply have to take solace from the fact that this Conservative government will fully own what is coming, and when it happens hopefully the working class most harshly affected by Brexit and austerity can be won back again.

Not much good if your job is compromised and you have to emigrate but, well... Here we are I suppose. Remain will become rejoin and once Labour moves back to the centre and rejoins in a decade with the nation having been suitably humbled and having had its centuries overdue reckoning with its past then I think British society will finally progress though it'll remain a pariah to potential investors for decades to come.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Corbyn is 70 and can move to the side having never compromised on his principles. Labour will re - emerge in a new form of Blairism and be ready in a few years to take advantage of the Conservatives being made to own Brexit, economic stagnation and the poverty that goes with it.

There is a real desire for change in British society, there can be no denying that. “Brexit” has been packaged as the change required, successfully sold as an easy answer to reclaim the past. Corbyn has produced two manifestos that offer real substantive change but it is yet another victory for the real power base in UK society. How many lads from the debating society in Eton do the UK populace have to run through before they realise it’s not in their interest to keep electing them?

Well, the British public have been electing said posh boys for centuries. Eton was founded in the mid-fifteenth century by Henry VI so at least they've been consistent.

Real substantiative change does not necessarily equate to desirable change. I do not want to swell the size of the state to the levels that Jeremy Corbyn is proposing and it seems that most of the British public agree with me to some degree and it's neither fair nor accurate to blame all of this on the press barons. The fact is that Corbyn's manifestos have been somewhat extreme by British standards but I do not think that this has hurt him as much as the baggage he has, both real and fictional. Real change will inevitably happen but I think that it needs to come from the liberal centre and fast. Unfortunately, this seems vanishingly unlikely when one uses Jo Swinson as a proxy.

Kermit.de.frog

Johnson not getting a majority is not in Ireland's interests no matter what you think of Brexit.

Corbyn proving what we know about remainers - they are willing to risk violence in NI to score points. They are winding up the unionists now and don't care because it suits their agenda.

Best result for us is to get the WA done and dusted in January otherwise it will just be more prolonged uncertainty with our island used as a tool.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

err, because the Labour party voted in favour of holding the referendum and then voted in favour of acting on the result of that referendum and triggering article 50.

Where did you see May's and then Johnson's deal on the referendum ballot?

Today, Sir John Curtice explained how a shift of votes to Labour is being widely misinterpreted, and that things haven't really improved for them at all since the election was called, at least not in a way where the Tories haven't similarly improved.

Worth a read.

According to polling guru John Curtice, although Labour have started to narrow the gap to the Conservatives, this does not necessarily indicate that a wider shift to Labour is underway as was the case in 2017.

"The Labour Party has made progress primarily by increasing its support amongst Remain voters at the expense of the Liberal Democrats by five points or so", said Mr Curtice on BBC's Radio 4 Today Programme.

“So, although we have seen the electorate move, the consequence for the race for Number 10 has so far basically been zero because Conservatives and Labour have simply matched each other.

“In other words, very few people have actually changed their mind in such a way that they’re now backing a pro-Brexit party when they were voting for a pro-second referendum party four weeks ago, or vice-versa."

While the Tory lead has narrowed slightly in the last week, from 13 points to 10, it is now still at the same level it was when the election was called.

Both parties have benefited from the decline of the smaller parties, with Lib Dem voters switching to Labour and Brexit Party voters falling back into the Tory fold.

With both Remainers and Brexiteers moving in similar numbers, their tactical voting is - on the whole - cancelling each other out.

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

what?

no one has even started to discuss the trade deal yet

Just to repeat, i dont believe it is in any way credible that they can negotiate a trade deal with the EU by the end of 2020. It seems like fantasy to me. That is my and many others' belief.

They have to decide by July whether to extend the negotiationing period. Johnson has categorically ruled any extension out.

Ergo no trade deal by 31 December means no deal exit.