General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Gosh. I 100% believe the Dems lost that election as soon as they selected Clinton as candidate, so Cambridge Analytica actually had little influence.

So the $5.9million (minimum) that the Trump campaign spent on Cambridge Analytical had little influence on the election?

What a great businessman.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Saying that one side won an election because their marketing strategy was more effective is a little like saying they won because they ran a better campaign.

Which is kind of the point.

Not if it was illegal. Which the Cambridge Analytica data breach was.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What do you think would have happened if corbyn had decided not to respect the result of the referendum? Would it have succeeded in stopping brexit in its tracks or merely handed theresa may the handiest election campaign attack line possible?

Likliest outcome imo is they'd have left last march as per deadline which might have been for the best on many levels.

But May triggered A50 at a time when the UK civil service were begging her not to and warning her that the country wasn't remotely ready to leave. Corbyn's complete non opposition to Brexit may well have fuelled people's belief that the referendum result was more sacred than the Magna Carta.

It would have been fascinating to see the Brexit debate if the main opposition leader had been calling out the whole thing as BS and a sham.

hometruths

Deleted User wrote: »

So the $5.9million (minimum) that the Trump campaign spent on Cambridge Analytical had little influence on the election?

What a great businessman.

$5.9 million is a small advertising spend in the context of any US election. So yes I would still say the candidates characters/value/history had more impact on the result than the Cambridge Analytica spend.

In that election campaign Trump spent $616.5 million vs $1.2 billion by Clinton.

On those numbers, given that he spent less and won the election, you’d have to say Trump is both a better businessperson and politician than Clinton!

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

But May triggered A50 at a time when the UK civil service were begging her not to and warning her that the country wasn't remotely ready to leave. Corbyn's complete non opposition to Brexit may well have fuelled people's belief that the referendum result was more sacred than the Magna Carta.

It would have been fascinating to see the Brexit debate if the main opposition leader had been calling out the whole thing as BS and a sham.

Yeah, i understand completely thats what remainers wanted - not all, but majority - but there was also political reality of the time. Opposing A50 triggering definitely had some validity, but it would also have exposed them to the charge of subverting the will of the people and all that. Tories would have loved it and likely called a snap poll at that point. Farage would have destroyed labour in the north and elsewhere. The electorate not really pay much heed to what civil servants say, i think. Labours divisions would have cleaved them open if they'd pushed a clear remain agenda from the start imo.

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

$5.9 million is a small advertising spend in the context of any US election. So yes I would still say the candidates characters/value/history had more impact on the result than the Cambridge Analytica spend.

In that election campaign Trump spent $616.5 million vs $1.2 billion by Clinton.

On those numbers, given that he spent less and won the election, you’d have to say Trump is both a better businessperson and politician than Clinton!

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

But it had nothing (or very little) to do with CA's 30million people reach. Gotcha.

Ok, we can agree to disagree.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, i understand completely thats what remainers wanted - not all, but majority - but there was also political reality of the time. Opposing A50 triggering definitely had some validity, but it would also have exposed them to the charge of subverting the will of the people and all that. Tories would have loved it and likely called a snap poll at that point. Farage would have destroyed labour in the north and elsewhere. The electorate not really pay much heed to what civil servants say, i think. Labours divisions would have cleaved them open if they'd pushed a clear remain agenda from the start imo.

For sure, but it would also have been a huge rallying point for every Remain supporter in the country.

Corbyn was never going to be the man to do it though....he was much closer to the Labour Leave crowd than to any Remain element.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but it would also have been a huge rallying point for every Remain supporter in the country.

Corbyn was never going to be the man to do it though....he was much closer to the Labour Leave crowd than to any Remain element.

True enough. Jonathan Freedland addresses this point in today's guardian, he thinks tony blair would have been the man though freedland still hasnt gotten over new labours 2010 election defeat yet. We'll just never know on that one i believe.

Joe_ Public

Other point worth making, corbyn can be dismissed as a leaver/hard brexiteer by anybody, but the irony is he's more resonsible than anybody for brexit not happening yet. For his part in denying tory majority in 2017, that made it so much more difficult for may to get the numbers. Not that i believe anyone will ever thank him for it!

And that was managed because, unlike now, lab was able to make that election about other issues than brexit. Had they stood against respecting the referendum result or triggering A50, then they would almost Scertainly hsve faced a brexit election and, i believe, lost heavily.

mm_surf

So with a tory majority looking likely, how much of a majority does Johnson need in order for "his deal" to have a good chance of passing?
I truly believe that Britain needs to experience brexit in order to understand the consequences of brexit. Only then will any result "stick". At the moment, the two sides both believe "their" view is correct.

M.

mm_surf

mm_surf wrote: »

So with a tory majority looking likely, how much of a majority does Johnson need in order for "his deal" to have a good chance of passing?
I truly believe that Britain needs to experience brexit in order to understand the consequences of brexit. Only then will any result "stick". At the moment, the two sides both believe "their" view is correct.

M.

When they're gone though, they're gone. It'll be a couple more centuries before they'll give up Sterling, which will be the price to rejoin.

Edit: 326 seats for a majority. I imagine he's looking at around 340

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

Edit: 326 seats for a majority. I imagine he's looking at around 340

326 is before taking the Speaker and the SF seats in to account. SF have 7 and will probably have 7, or possibly 8 or very unlikely 5 or 6 (Foyle probable loss, Belfast North potential gain, South Down very unlikely loss). 322 will probably do.

Only a very small number of remaining Tory candidates would vote against whatever Boris wants at that - resignations and retirements cleared out the bulk of the rebels.

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Nobody seriously thinks they can win a majority, but not as if a hung parliament would be a huge shock.

Enzokk

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On Brexit, the most divisive and important issue, Corbyn has failed to show leadership and has rather creavenly tried to please everyone. In so doing, he is pleasing no one . Thus, insofar as Irish people would like to see some kind of opposition to Brexit and someone trying to lead the UK back to remain, calling Corbyn useless and a disaster has been, from an Irish point of view, completely accurate

I realize now if you want an honest opinion on your sporting/political side you need to listen to what your opponents tell you. People were saying Corbyn would be a disaster when he became leader and this has played out. This is not because he is a bad person, it's just that he had baggage that people knew would haunt him and make it hard for him to appeal to the wider electorate other than the Labour base. Like Rees-Mogg there is a reason why he was on the backbenches for so long as well.

He was maybe a too far left leader, but he will have pushed the party to the left from where they were in 2015 and if he were to lose seats on Thursday then you expect him to resign. His successor will be in a better place I think than he was when he took over.

Mortelaro

mm_surf wrote: »

So with a tory majority looking likely, how much of a majority does Johnson need in order for "his deal" to have a good chance of passing?
I truly believe that Britain needs to experience brexit in order to understand the consequences of brexit. Only then will any result "stick". At the moment, the two sides both believe "their" view is correct.

M.

He'll pass the deal,then run the transition clock down meaning wto trade conditions between the UK and EU in 2021
An absolute win for the ERG.

Two new polls released - one from YouGov and the other from Delta Poll UK - show a 10-point and an 11-point lead, respectively, for the Conservative Party.

With only 4-days to go until the election, I expected to see some sort of swing toward Labour, but nothing as yet has come about.

For the past 4-5 weeks on here, we've heard about the Labour surge -- but where is it!?

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1203422629409050624

Joe_ Public

I mean i know they're the polls and they're completely infallible and all, but maybe you could quote the one that shows the lead is as little as 6%. If only to show the divergence between all of them, same as it was 2 years ago.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I mean i know they're the polls and they're completely infallible and all, but maybe you could quote the one that shows the lead is as little as 6%. If only to show the divergence between all of them, same as it was 2 years ago.

We saw one such poll a few days ago.

The problem is - it is only that poll.

Literally 98% of all polls show a 8-15 point lead, an average of 10-11 points, for the Conservative Party.

zanador

I'm wondering about the youth vote- are there any polls that specifically target them?

They don't engage with facebook really so a marketing campaign there may mean little and also I think they are registering because they know exactly who they're going to vote for and so won't be swayed last minute like an in decider could be.

I don't know much about it though if anyone does?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We saw one such poll a few days ago.

The problem is - it is only that poll.

Literally 98% of all polls show a 8-15 point lead, an average of 10-11 points, for the Conservative Party.

Com res poll just released yesterday - 6 point lead.

I dont care. In 2017 the final polls all showed tory leads from a few points all the way up to 13. The biggest ones were the ultimate outliers. Are they to be trusted this time? I wouldnt be jumping up and down like an excited child about it, but anyway. I'd say you're the kind of fellow the tories would be wary of on Thursday, looks out window and its lashing down, ah sure going to win a 365 majority anyway, i wont bother this time, eastenders is starting in 20 minutes.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The biggest ones were the ultimate outliers. Are they to be trusted this time? I wouldnt be jumping up and down like an excited child about it, but anyway. I'd say you're the kind of fellow the tories would be wary of on Thursday, looks out window and its lashing down, ah sure going to win a 365 majority anyway, i wont bother this time, eastenders is starting in 20 minutes.

I'm assuming that polling companies have modified their methods based on what transpired in 2017. I can't imagine that all methods have remained the same; it wouldn't make sense.

Second, given this is a Brexit election, I think you'll find that Leave voters would be willing to step barefoot on hot coals to get to that voting booth.

I doubt much of the youth would be prepared to do the same in rain. Yes, there is a very loud youth minority who make a lot of noise about Corbyn. Most young people, though, don't give a damn about politics. They'd rather go to a party on Thursday night.

Joe_ Public

zanador wrote: »

I'm wondering about the youth vote- are there any polls that specifically target them?

They don't engage with facebook really so a marketing campaign there may mean little and also I think they are registering because they know exactly who they're going to vote for and so won't be swayed last minute like an in decider could be.

I don't know much about it though if anyone does?

Its a good point. I dont think the polls can gauge the youth vote accurately, a lot of it first time. Some polls i see have quite high figures on the likely to vote 18-24 age bracket, upwards of 60% which would be decent. Its the same with tactical voting which would cover many of those among the undecideds. If Labour can get that youth vote out it will help, and their activists are rather good at it.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm assuming that polling companies have modified their methods based on what transpired in 2017. I can't imagine that all methods have remained the same; it wouldn't make sense.

Second, given this is a Brexit election, I think you'll find that Leave voters would be willing to step barefoot on hot coals to get to that voting booth.

I doubt much of the youth would be prepared to do the same in rain. Yes, there is a very loud youth minority who make a lot of noise about Corbyn. Most young people, though, don't give a damn about politics. They'd rather go to a party on Thursday night.

Sure you could be entirely right. All just making assumptions. The youths who have been signing up to the register in record numbers certainly show they care some way about it but the challenge is still there to get them out alright. Thats a given.

Sam Russell

schmittel wrote: »

Gosh. I 100% believe the Dems lost that election as soon as they selected Clinton as candidate, so Cambridge Analytica actually had little influence.

Given our respective % certainties on our positions I think it unlikely we will meet somewhere in the middle!

Clinton lost by, was it, 56,000 votes spread over three states. She won the popular vote hugely. Targeted adverts were enough to have had a major effect in those states. Add voter exclusion which was rampant, and polling stations closing while voters queued to vote. Add in all the lies told by Trump that were doubled down on by the media (well Fox News), and you think it was a fair vote.

And you predicted the outcome six months ahead of the vote!

Really?

zanador

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sure you could be entirely right. All just making assumptions. The youths who have been signing up to the register in record numbers certainly show they care some way about it but the challenge is still there to get them out alright. Thats a given.

When they care they tend to turn out though? Im hoping it translates to Labour as they are aware of how difficult things are for them and have only known it as Tory led policy since they've been politically cognisant. Also, i don't think we can underestimate the power of how much they don't want brexit they are to many generations removed from the 'green and pleasant land/empire' mentality. They want to have the freedoms they have growm up with. I'm hoping anyway.

Also how many ethnic communities are polled? I read here or on another thread that some of them would vote for Tory (and brexit) as it leaves it easier to get members of their families over etc.? I dont agree with this if true but I understand why they'd do it.

johnnyskeleton

zanador wrote: »

When they care they tend to turn out though? Im hoping it translates to Labour as they are aware of how difficult things are for them and have only known it as Tory led policy since they've been politically cognisant. Also, i don't think we can underestimate the power of how much they don't want brexit they are to many generations removed from the 'green and pleasant land/empire' mentality. They want to have the freedoms they have growm up with. I'm hoping anyway.

If its the anti Brexit voters who turn up unexpectedly, that would be bad for Labour as it would mean more Lid Dem, SNP and Green votes.

Sam Russell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's strange, I've only ever heard the phrase "losers consent" since 2016, and I like to think that I'm reasonably clued in politically. It certainly sounds like a real thing, as in a high minded principle of democracy, or an academic analysis of how people react when the vote doesn't go their way. And it is discussed as though we are all aware of it and all agree with it as a doctrine (or at least everyone did agree with it, until Trump/Brexit). But the only references I can find to it prior to Brexit/Trump appear to relate to a relatively obscure text by Christopher J. Anderson, André Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug.

However, the way they describe losers consent is about how, having lost, the losing side accept that they lost. It isn't a theory that suggests that the supporters of party or position A must, having lost to party or position B, become supporters of party or position B. Nor is it that they must always accept that the outcome was valid - indeed, most democracies have a procedure for challenging the outcomes of elections where there has been an error of some kind. It is simply a theory that suggests that it is important that the unsuccessful side continues to accept the institutions of democracy and don't turn to apathy etc.

In the U.K., the remain side have not rejected the institutions of democracy such as voting and parliament. In fact, overall they are greater supporters of same, utterly condemning Boris Johnson for trying to circumvent parliamentary procedure.

It is true that the remain side have continued to advocate for remain and haven't said "ok, I guess we'd better get behind brexit". But I can't think of any concept of democracy that requires them to do so. They must respect what the majority have said and they have done, by e.g. voting to trigger article 50 etc. But there is no doctrine of "losers consent" that requires remain voters to now support brexit.

Similarly, pointing out that there were irregularities in the election campaigns is not a breach of a concept of "losers consent". It is, by contrast, the actions of people who still very much believe in the system, and in so doing want to maintain the integrity of the system.

Finally, insofar as remainers want another referendum, that is the opposite of losers consent. It shows that they still believe in the importance of referenda and voting, and they haven't become apathetic. In truth, so much stuff has happened since the Brexit vote, that it would be almost impossible to deny that there is a case to make that circumstances have changed.

So, coming back to your analogy about voting for FG, the "losers" in that election have, far from getting behind FG, have attempted to undermine them at every hare's turn. Just this week they have had a vote of no confidence in one of their ministers. That is democracy in action, and the "losers" are consenting insofar as they are fulfilling their role as opposition parliamentarians.

Further, would it be losers consent to say that because FG won the last election, that there is no scope for people to want a change of direction? If it turned out, extending your analogy, that FG won after breaching electoral rules and that, in the 3 years since they took over, we have found out a lot more about them and realise they were a bad idea, are we not entitled to change our views?

I would point out as well that logically, if remainers are not allowed to voice criticism of leaving, then one could go back further and say that the leave parties should not have been allowed to criticise the EU prior to that point, as the leavers were the "losers" prior to the Brexit vote.

Ultimately, the position is this:
1. People are free to believe what they want in a democracy;
2. The problem of not having losers consent is if they lose faith in democracy and take matters into their own hands;
3. The losing side doesn't have to be submissive or agree with the outcome;
4. Everyone is entitled to challenge a vote where there has been irregularities or misconduct;
5. People can always change their minds and seek to revisit an issue; and
6. While a great leader can, after a divisive election, rally the losing side behind him/her, if the leader chooses instead to continue to stoke the divisions and insist on demonising the other side, then obviously the "losers" aren't going to get behind him/her.

I would have thought the 'Losers Consent' would be the winner adjusting the policy to accept some of the points proposed by the losing side so as to gain their support for the final policy.

In other words, it is not the losers that have to change their view, but the winners have to modify their approach so as to win wider acceptance when the voting margin is so small.

Just a different view of how the Brexit approach by May should have been rather than going full hard Brexit from the off. She never approached the opposition to get some buy in from them so that the Ref could be implemented.

No wonder there is such division.

briany

zanador wrote: »

When they care they tend to turn out though? Im hoping it translates to Labour as they are aware of how difficult things are for them and have only known it as Tory led policy since they've been politically cognisant. Also, i don't think we can underestimate the power of how much they don't want brexit they are to many generations removed from the 'green and pleasant land/empire' mentality. They want to have the freedoms they have growm up with. I'm hoping anyway.

Also how many ethnic communities are polled? I read here or on another thread that some of them would vote for Tory (and brexit) as it leaves it easier to get members of their families over etc.? I dont agree with this if true but I understand why they'd do it.

Don't think the youth vote is going to be keen enough on Labour to prevent a Conservative majority. I have to wonder how disillusioned younger voters are feeling, given Corbyn's tepid, lukewarm attitude to remaining in the EU. And that could mean going Lib Dem instead, who, incidentally, have vowed no coalition with Labour.

Perhaps we should stop quoting the national polls, anyway, given they don't reflect where the support is concentrated. This is what tripped up the pundits during the 2016 POTUS election (although you'd think all these statisticians and poli-sci heads would be even more aware of voter concentration and error margins than the general public). Constituency-by-constituency is where it's at, surely.

Joe_ Public

zanador wrote: »

When they care they tend to turn out though? Im hoping it translates to Labour as they are aware of how difficult things are for them and have only known it as Tory led policy since they've been politically cognisant. Also, i don't think we can underestimate the power of how much they don't want brexit they are to many generations removed from the 'green and pleasant land/empire' mentality. They want to have the freedoms they have growm up with. I'm hoping anyway.

Also how many ethnic communities are polled? I read here or on another thread that some of them would vote for Tory (and brexit) as it leaves it easier to get members of their families over etc.? I dont agree with this if true but I understand why they'd do it.

I dont have figures to hand but i would be close to 100% certain ethnic minorities are labour mostly. Labour is not only the most ethnically diverse party it is also strongest in the larger urban areas where concentration of minorities is strongest. With a couple of exceptions like the jewish community obviously and the sikh community in leicester.

I honestly don't know how any immigrant, no matter how long in the uk, could be duped into believing a tory brexit is in their interest. That would be tragic. Priti Patel as home sec would make Theresa "send them home" May serm their greatest friend. Have they already forgotten windrush? Uk citizens actually died through tory callousness, i cannot understand why that isnt a bigger election issue. Lack of compassion is something even brexit voters could not find favour with.

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If its the anti Brexit voters who turn up unexpectedly, that would be bad for Labour as it would mean more Lid Dem, SNP and Green votes.

I'm not so sure. Labour has done a decent job of publicising its confirmatory vote policy while the Lib Dems have floundered under a dreadful and often dishonest campaign. Corbyn's green agenda is probably such that voting Green is completely pointless which just leaves the SNP which would probably be willing to do a deal with Corbyn anyway.