General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Letwin_Larry

the opinion polls do look bad for Labour's chances, but i really think we must take them with a fairly large dose of salts.
i really think to paraphrase the Donald. Rumsfeld that is not Trump. that there are so many unknowns.

here are a few of the known unknowns,

• first we have tactical voting. may or may not happen or indeed work if it does occur in any meaningful way. more likely to favour Lib Dems & Lab if it actually works.
• then we got those swathes of undecided voters. will they flip, defect, stay loyal or stay at home? no way of knowing imo.
• also we must not forget those (mainly) younger new regs. their intentions will have a huge impact imo. more likely to be Remainers who feel their voices were not heard in the Referendum.
• lastly but not least we have the silent voter waiting in the long grass. a lot of these will possibly vote for The Brexit Party, but may prefer to stay silent about their voting intentions.

i really do not see how Opinion Polls can accurately account for the above, and for that reason it aint over til The Fat Lady sings!

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i really do not see how Opinion Polls can accurately account for the above, and for that reason it aint over til The Fat Lady sings!

Let's also consider turnout.

The weather predicted for election day is absolutely awful.

Given the apathy that many have for the political class, it's even more likely now that the result next week may be determined by a relatively low turnout.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's equal:

• Johnson: pro-Brexit, pro-business, pro-Capitalism, pro-security, pro-UK.
• Corbyn: anti-Brexit, anti-business, anti-Capitalist, neutral-security, anti-UK.

Johnson: Pro Brexit - The man who had two articles written depending on which way the wind blew.

Pro- Business - He literally said, "F*ck business"

Pro-capitalism - because capitalism is really doing well over the last 25 years....

Pro-security - The police and intelligence agencies have warned of massive damage to their operations upon exitingthe EU


Pro-UK - He threw NI to the wolves. No need to argue that one. If the deal was good for NI and the united kingdom, the DUP would have supported it.

Corbyn - Anti Brexit, historically he has voted against Europe time and time again. I think he believes in Brexit. He's taking the correct stance of sitting on the fence, and putting it to the people, but this time make it legally binding, so there's less lying and cheating.

Anti-business - I think he's anti corporation more than anti business - which is a correct way to be with where corporations are heading.

Anti-capitalist - Yes, he's a socialist, society is incredibly unequal, and we could all do with a bit of socialism for a while. Get hospitals, schools, defence transport and energy up to a decent level.

Neutral security - (I don't understand how you can be neutral security, at least you didn't say he is anti-security)

Anti-UK - He has said Scotland cannot have their referendum until the first term of this potential Labour govt ends (2024)

darem93

So according to Wiki, these were the last 6 polls before polling day in 2017.

CON - 44%, LAB - 36%
CON - 44%, LAB - 33%
CON - 41%, LAB - 40%
CON - 46%, LAB - 34%
CON - 42%, LAB - 35%
CON - 44%, LAB - 34%

I do unfortunately have a bad feeling this time around that the Tories will get their majority, but this proves that the polls can get it very wrong. Everyone was expecting a Tory landslide last time and then the exit poll was released and everyone was left a bit gobsmacked.

darem93

darem93 wrote: »

So according to Wiki, these were the last 6 polls before polling day in 2017.

CON - 44%, LAB - 36%
CON - 44%, LAB - 33%
CON - 41%, LAB - 40%
CON - 46%, LAB - 34%
CON - 42%, LAB - 35%
CON - 44%, LAB - 34%

I do unfortunately have a bad feeling this time around that the Tories will get their majority, but this proves that the polls can get it very wrong. Everyone was expecting a Tory landslide last time and then the exit poll was released and everyone was left a bit gobsmacked.

I'd like to know if polling companies have changed their methods after what happened in 2017 - to mitigate against any similar errors.

Does anyone know if this is the case?

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's also consider turnout.

The weather predicted for election day is absolutely awful.

Given the apathy that many have for the political class, it's even more likely now that the result next week may be determined by a relatively low turnout.

well i would put them into the 2nd group ie undecided/non committed voters. imo if you are a committed Leaver or Remainer, you will find your way to the polling station by hook or by crook.
this is quite possibly the most important UK GE in a generation.

An Ciarraioch

The only lingering question will be how the North reacts, it seems - would certainly be a blow to unionism, in particular, if the expected majority means the current agreement is passed unamended.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a fair question.

If I were them (as a Brexit supporter), I imagine the type of answers you'd receive would be something that parallels:

1) Democracy matters more, and we want our result implemented. We're willing to hold our nose and vote Conservative to "right that wrong".

2) We didn't vote Brexit on economic grounds. We voted to gain control of our laws, borders, and monies. Even though the Conservative Party are far from perfect and do not always align with our values, they are willing to give us our laws, borders, and monies. Then, we can opt for another party at some point in the future once the aforementioned has been achieved.

3) We cannot vote for a party -- the Labour Party -- in its current form given the anti-Semitic poison that now pervades the party. The Labour Party used to be about the working man or woman, now it's about political correctness and ignoring traditional Labour supporters who happen to oppose remaining within the EU.

I'm not justifying their answer, but I imagine that's what you'd hear.

And I would say to them:

1:The vote was never a legally binding vote. Indisputable. The referendum was legally nothing more than an extravagant opinion poll.

2: What did you vote on then? The UK have a veto in the EU. They can kick people out of their country if they don't try and find work. You always had controls over your borders, laws and monies. And also, the EU have funded A LOT of projects in the UK which otherwise may not have happened.

3: But you have no problem with the Islamophobia that runs through the Tory party?


So what have the Tories done over the last ten years that have earned your vote?

Given you an unfair referendum.
Didn't tell you what you were actually voting for in that unfair referendum.
Oversee a rampant increase in Islamophobia in the party.

Thargor

Orwellian the way every UK media outlet is suddenly hysterical about where Corbyn got the documents and possible Russian interference rather than their contents, wheres the same hysteria about Johnson blocking release of a report into actual Russian influence in the Tory party?

Letwin_Larry

darem93 wrote: »

So according to Wiki, these were the last 6 polls before polling day in 2017.

CON - 44%, LAB - 36%
CON - 44%, LAB - 33%
CON - 41%, LAB - 40%
CON - 46%, LAB - 34%
CON - 42%, LAB - 35%
CON - 44%, LAB - 34%

I do unfortunately have a bad feeling this time around that the Tories will get their majority, but this proves that the polls can get it very wrong. Everyone was expecting a Tory landslide last time and then the exit poll was released and everyone was left a bit gobsmacked.

and let's not forget the Referendum vote, the greatest exercise in democracy ever witnessed (or so they keep telling us).
there were quite a few surprised little faces when the final count came in, if i recall.

darem93

darem93 wrote: »

So according to Wiki, these were the last 6 polls before polling day in 2017.

CON - 44%, LAB - 36%
CON - 44%, LAB - 33%
CON - 41%, LAB - 40%
CON - 46%, LAB - 34%
CON - 42%, LAB - 35%
CON - 44%, LAB - 34%

I do unfortunately have a bad feeling this time around that the Tories will get their majority, but this proves that the polls can get it very wrong. Everyone was expecting a Tory landslide last time and then the exit poll was released and everyone was left a bit gobsmacked.

It's utter fairy tale stuff to think Labour have a hope in this election. Absolutely no chance.

Thargor

Thargor wrote: »

Orwellian the way every UK media outlet is suddenly hysterical about where Corbyn got the documents and possible Russian interference rather than their contents, wheres the same hysteria about Johnson blocking release of a report into actual Russian influence in the Tory party?

It doesn't matter how legitimate the documents are, because there is no concession within the 450+ page document that the UK has agreed to "sell off" the NHS. This was the fanatical claim made by Corbyn, and serves as a grotesque misrepresentation of the document to mislead the public. If there were direct evidence, you would have seen a shift with opinion polls. The story passed precisely because there is no substance to the documents.

Second, the source matters far more.

If these are Russian-backed documents and Corbyn has ventriloquised them for his own political gain, that will damage him electorally - whether right or wrong - because of that toxic association, as well as a reinforcement that Corbyn and forces opposed to the UK are in alliance.

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

It's utter fairy tale stuff to think Labour have a hope in this election. Absolutely no chance.

you could well be correct, but what makes you so certain?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's also consider turnout.

The weather predicted for election day is absolutely awful.

Given the apathy that many have for the political class, it's even more likely now that the result next week may be determined by a relatively low turnout.

Who is that good or bad news for? Many of the most apathetic voters in the uk were among those who turned out for the 2016 vote but dont normally bother with elections because party politics doesnt interest them. They'd be among my first choice to stay indoors if weather is indeed a factor.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

3) We cannot vote for a party -- the Labour Party -- in its current form given the anti-Semitic poison that now pervades the party.

So instead we'll vote for a party that doesnt discriminate against one particular minority, but pretty much targets them all. Or, as John Crace put it, they are inclusive in their abuse, which basically makes them tolerant.

hometruths

One of the things that makes this thread interesting, and a better actual discussion maybe than a similiar UK forum is that few of us posting here have a vote in this election.

In looking a the election and commenting here, I try and put myself shoes of a UK voter, when assessing the leaders, policies etc how would I vote if I had a vote. (I have lived in the UK but never voted there). And when someone on here disagrees with that opinion, sure so what, differences of opinion are healthy and hell, what do I care anyway, I have no skin in the game.

Prompted by someones post above comparing Martin and Varadkar to Corbyn and Johnson I started thinking about the discussion here in relation to our politicians, and our own forthcoming election.

In that election, as things stand currently, I will probably vote FG for various reasons that are off topic here.

My relevant point to this thread is that if I voted FG and they won the election, I would be beyond furious if there was an attempt to undermine that election result because people who voted for other parties claimed the reason I voted FG was because I was too thick to understand the issues or brainwashed by the media, the Russians, fake news or whatever excuse you're having this week.

It would drive me nuts, and thinking about this from the perspective of a UK voter in this election I have massive sympathy for them, because no matter what the result it will be undermined by those who have no idea of the democratic value of losers consent.

We have seen losers consent abandoned in the US as well with Trump's election, and if the pattern continues the long term damage will be far greater than whatever Trump/Brexit/Johnson inflicts.

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you could well be correct, but what makes you so certain?

I believe we have reached peak idiocracy levels in the US and UK with Trump and Brexit. Anything remotely good for the nation will fail at the booth due to an overreach of money, lies, base arguments and name calling.

You can't keep stripping away money from education and expect a population to actually know what they're actually voting for. It could be why we don't have extreme left and right parties in Ireland, because we're too damn educated.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

My relevant point to this thread is that if I voted FG and they won the election, I would be beyond furious if there was an attempt to undermine that election result because people who voted for other parties claimed the reason I voted FG was because I was too thick to understand the issues or brainwashed by the media, the Russians, fake news or whatever excuse you're having this week.

It would drive me nuts, and thinking about this from the perspective of a UK voter in this election I have massive sympathy for them, because no matter what the result it will be undermined by those who have no idea of the democratic value of losers consent.

That's a very good point.

Unfortunately, and we've seen expressions of it on this thread, that anyone who dared vote Brexit is either a very stupid person, or a person easily manipulated by other people -- Russians, wealthy people, Farage, "the Media". They are either dumb, sheep, or both of these. The "educated class" knows what they voted for -- of course they did -- so they must stand over and educate the dumb people.

The vote of the "stupid people" is considered "less of a vote" because they "didn't vote the right way". As a result, the logic goes that "another vote must be held" to make sure the "sensible, intelligent people" get their way to "educate those stupid people to vote the right way" - "right" being code for "the way they believe".

It's astonishing arrogance.

And yes, it has already happened in the US too, with President Trump.

Exactly the same elitism.
Exactly the same arrogance.
Exactly the same condescension.

...and yet, it continues.

In response to this message, we will see examples of precisely that -- either guarded, unvarnished, or outright.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a very good point.

Unfortunately, and we've seen expressions of it on this thread, that anyone who dared vote Brexit is either a very stupid person, or a person easily manipulated by other people -- Russians, wealthy people, Farage, "the Media". They are either dumb, sheep, or both of these.

The vote of the "stupid people" is considered "less of a vote" because they "didn't vote the right way". As a result, the logic goes that "another vote must be held" to make sure the "sensible, intelligent people" get their way to "educate those stupid people to vote the right way" - "right" being code for "they way they believe".

It's astonishing arrogance.

And yes, it has already happened in the US too, with President Trump.

Exactly the same elitism.
Exactly the same arrogance.
Exactly the same condescension.

...and yet, it continues.

In response to this message, we will see examples of precisely that -- either guarded, unvarnished, or outright.

It's ludicrous that you think Cambridge Analytica made no difference to either Trump or Brexit.

If people aren't so easily manipulated, why did the Trump campaign and the Leave group spend so much money on targetted campaigning?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's ludicrous that you think Cambridge Analytica made no difference to either Trump or Brexit.

If people aren't so easily manipulated, why did the Trump campaign and the Leave group spend so much money on targetted campaigning?

Can I ask, why were you personally immune to this "manipulation"?

Second, it's 3 years beyond the referendum result -- and with all the details that have come to pass -- upwards of 45% are still willing to opt for Johnson in the forthcoming election.

Are these voters, in your view, irreconcilably stupid?

Irish Praetorian

schmittel wrote: »

One of the things that makes this thread interesting, and a better actual discussion maybe than a similiar UK forum is that few of us posting here have a vote in this election.

In looking a the election and commenting here, I try and put myself shoes of a UK voter, when assessing the leaders, policies etc how would I vote if I had a vote. (I have lived in the UK but never voted there). And when someone on here disagrees with that opinion, sure so what, differences of opinion are healthy and hell, what do I care anyway, I have no skin in the game.

Prompted by someones post above comparing Martin and Varadkar to Corbyn and Johnson I started thinking about the discussion here in relation to our politicians, and our own forthcoming election.

In that election, as things stand currently, I will probably vote FG for various reasons that are off topic here.

My relevant point to this thread is that if I voted FG and they won the election, I would be beyond furious if there was an attempt to undermine that election result because people who voted for other parties claimed the reason I voted FG was because I was too thick to understand the issues or brainwashed by the media, the Russians, fake news or whatever excuse you're having this week.

It would drive me nuts, and thinking about this from the perspective of a UK voter in this election I have massive sympathy for them, because no matter what the result it will be undermined by those who have no idea of the democratic value of losers consent.

We have seen losers consent abandoned in the US as well with Trump's election, and if the pattern continues the long term damage will be far greater than whatever Trump/Brexit/Johnson inflicts.

It's a perfectly fair point in my opinion and to be frank, I think the eruption of dissent that we have seen in the aftermath of the Brexit result is really just scratching the surface of a far deeper problem. The conflict, which breaks down largely between those who see themselves as possessing a truth and those who seem themselves possessing a Democratic mandate, is so dangerous because it makes enemies of two virtues.

Put another way, if your democratic will is ignored you have a pretty obvious case to be very angry and hold those who would oppose you in contempt. In the same vein, if you see the society you live in trade truths and rational debate for slogans and fallacies, you might have another obvious case to try and stop the rot. Let these two sides erupt on an issue and you get Brexit and the unrest which has followed.

More worryingly though, it might well be that this is simply the first example of this kind of struggle in modern societies. I don't think its a big misrepresentation to say that for much of its modern history, democracy has been curated by various choke-points such as political parties, newspapers, trade unions, geographic or ethnic identities and other factors. Now, with the proliferation of mass communication and greater dissemination of political thought to individuals, a lot of the old choke-points are going and what now emerges is a weird political melee where friend and foe are unclear and even something like objective truth faces threats from various quarters.

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe we have reached peak idiocracy levels in the US and UK with Trump and Brexit. Anything remotely good for the nation will fail at the booth due to an overreach of money, lies, base arguments and name calling.

You can't keep stripping away money from education and expect a population to actually know what they're actually voting for. It could be why we don't have extreme left and right parties in Ireland, because we're too damn educated.

i agree with most of what you say, but would question your conclusion.
to you,

uneducated=Brexit, Tory voter
educated=Labour remain voter

many might think the opposite, ie you would be a total cretin to vote for a 1970s Marxist-Leninist terrorist hugging, Jew hating, Labour party.

Irish Praetorian

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

It's a perfectly fair point in my opinion and to be frank, I think the eruption of dissent that we have seen in the aftermath of the Brexit result is really just scratching the surface of a far deeper problem. The conflict, which breaks down largely between those who see themselves as possessing a truth and those who seem themselves possessing a Democratic mandate, is so dangerous because it makes enemies of two virtues.

Put another way, if your democratic will is ignored you have a pretty obvious case to be very angry and hold those who would oppose you in contempt. In the same vein, if you see the society you live in trade truths and rational debate for slogans and fallacies, you might have another obvious case to try and stop the rot. Let these two sides erupt on an issue and you get Brexit and the unrest which has followed.

More worryingly though, it might well be that this is simply the first example of this kind of struggle in modern societies. I don't think its a big misrepresentation to say that for much of its modern history, democracy has been curated by various choke-points such as political parties, newspapers, trade unions, geographic or ethnic identities and other factors. Now, with the proliferation of mass communication and greater dissemination of political thought to individuals, a lot of the old choke-points are going and what now emerges is a weird political melee where friend and foe are unclear and even something like objective truth faces threats from various quarters.

Possibly the most valuable, well-thought out contribution to this thread in quite some time.

Excellent point on "enemies between two virtues", couldn't have put it better myself. It frames the debate very well indeed, and in a way that I hadn't hitherto considered.

Objective, well-argued, and a great contribution.

I'm not sure how penetrative it will be to all, precisely because of the virtues of either position. Ironically perhaps, that's the catch-22.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Can I ask, why were you personally immune to this "manipulation"?

Second, it's 3 years beyond the referendum result -- and with all the details that have come to pass -- upwards of 45% are still willing to opt for Johnson in the forthcoming election.

Are these voters, in your view, irreconcilably stupid?

I don't have facebook, for a start

Second, yes. I can't understand how people can look at the cuts that have happened to the fire service, police service, the NHS, youth groups, the disabled, (the list goes on and on) and say to themselves, "This is as good as it gets, let's try him again".

Not to mention Johnson's personal record as Mayor of London, namely the fire brigade cute, the water cannons and his ludicrous ego maniacal Garden Bridge project.

sid waddell

Are some people here trying to say that democracy should be completely unregulated? Because that is what it looks like to me.

Democracy is a whole eco-system, not just a method of counting votes. It involves the press, the judiciary, and education. Democracy, to function properly, requires an informed citizenry.

We are living through a time where corporate money has what seems to be untramelled power to distort democracy by creating an alternatve reality world via both the traditional media and new media technology. It's happening in plain sight.

We are in the wild west of propaganda now. This is the logical outcome of unregulated capitalism - the dominance of corporate power over democracy.

As regards the US, what has gone on as regards voter suppression by Republicans is profoundly undemocratic and the Republican party is inviting more of the same Russian interference next year by consistently refusing to put in place any measures to protect the integrity of the vote.

I don't have all the answers, but these issues are just dismissed by a lot of people, who coincidentally almost always happen to vote for or support the political parties or ideas that benefit from this distortion of democracy.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have facebook, for a start

Second, yes. I can't understand how people can look at the cuts that have happened to the fire service, police service, the NHS, youth groups, the disabled, (the list goes on and on) and say to themselves, "This is as good as it gets, let's try him again".

Not to mention Johnson's personal record as Mayor of London, namely the fire brigade cute, the water cannons and his ludicrous ego maniacal Garden Bridge project.

Isn't that precisely the point?

You are immune, whereas the "stupid people', are vulnerable.

Therefore, you and your equivalent get to argue that a second vote should be held. You and they are our masters - and therefore get to determine the future.

It's not one-man-one-woman-one-vote.

It's one-intelligent-person : half-a-vote-to-a-less-intelligent-person

Aren't you setting a dangerous precedent? At what point is an electorate "sufficiently intelligent" to "make the right decision"?

If that's the criterion, then the result all votes would be known in advance (because everyone would be making the "right decision").

It's an affront to the democratic principle - pure and simple.

Sir Oxman

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interesting take from Lewis Goodall - Sky New writer, ex-Labour canvasser and looks at things very much from a Labour pov.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1202982233520386048

tldr : pretty sure Labour are a good bit behind where they were on final weekend in 2017

"The vitriol for JC now v strong from working class voters, mainly fuelled by Facebook ads. Repeated mentions of links to the IRA/terrorism, which have been circulated online"

Facebook have a hell of a lot to answer for.
An absolute scourge of untruths and fakery for profit.
It makes me sick.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can I ask, why were you personally immune to this "manipulation"?

Second, it's 3 years beyond the referendum result -- and with all the details that have come to pass -- upwards of 45% are still willing to opt for Johnson in the forthcoming election.

Are these voters, in your view, irreconcilably stupid?

Do you think your hero boris johnson has a high opinion of them? The same boris johnson who wrote of the children of single mothers that they were "ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate".

The same boris johnson who said of the modern working class male that he "is useless, If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless."

The same boris johnson whose father insulted the working class on national television recently, branding them 'illiterate."

What do you think, deep down, boris johnson really thinks of the average brexit voter?

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Do you think your hero boris johnson has a high opinion of them? The same boris johnson who wrote of the children of single mothers that they were "ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate".

The same boris johnson who said of the modern working class male that he "is useless, If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless."

The same boris johnson whose father insulted the working class on national television recently, branding them 'illiterate."

What do you think, deep down, boris johnson really thinks of the average brexit voter?

Only a total and complete idiot would deny the fact that Johnson is a total and complete elitist.

And as an elitist, he can be expected to articulate the type of comment that you've raised.

I think most voters know this, though. They know, like I and others, that you cannot necessarily control who is going to be the "Prime Minister of Brexit".

In this case, it happens to be Johnson. So for all faults, of which there are many, the fact that he's leading the Brexit revolution is sufficient enough for the electorate to vote for the Conservatives in overwhelming number.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only a total and complete idiot would deny the fact that Johnson is a total and complete elitist.

And as an elitist, he can be expected to articulate the type of comment that you've raised.

I think most voters know this, though. They know, like I and others, that you cannot necessarily control who is going to be the "Prime Minister of Brexit".

In this case, it happens to be Johnson. So for all faults, of which there are many, the fact that he's leading the Brexit revolution is sufficient enough for the electorate to vote for the Conservatives in overwhelming number.

So does being an elitist justify the kind of insulting, misogynistic, racist comments he has been regularly trotting out all his working life? I mean, I've heard the "satire" defence being wheeled out when required, but that would be a new one to add to it.