2019 General Election

First topic message reminder :

Now it's confirmed for December 12th (pretty much), I thought we should have a shiny new thread for the fourth and final UK GE of this tumultuous decade; a decade which has also included three referendums and four (maybe five) different Prime Ministers.

News this morning that Amber Rudd won't be defending her seat. Oh well.

Opinion polls currently have the Tories in a double digit lead, but it's anticipated to be a lot tighter than that by the time we reach the actual polling day.

Ouch standard responses.

I'm awaiting free gas and electric too, two utilities far more important than broadband, doesn't play quite so well to the masses though.

Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.

Soul Requiem wrote:Free broadband

. haven't the conservatives already said they're doing the same?

Luke wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Free broadband

. haven't the conservatives already said they're doing the same?

They've pledged to upgrade to fibre optic throughout the country, both policies are pie in the sky and unlikely to ever happen, plays well to the public though. Both parties seem hell bent on making proposals that they'll never keep especially in a time of Brexit uncertainty.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Luke wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Free broadband

. haven't the conservatives already said they're doing the same?

They've pledged to upgrade to fibre optic throughout the country, both policies are pie in the sky and unlikely to ever happen, plays well to the public though. Both parties seem hell bent on making proposals that they'll never keep especially in a time of Brexit uncertainty.

..

Don't disagree, and it's killing my interest in politics even more. Along with all parties making false statements about each other, the lies.
The sooner we get to p&r the better in my opinion.

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

It won't be free in the same way that the NHS isn't free.

As mentioned on the other thread - you can apply the same logic to anything that is funded by the tax payer. Labour aren't hiding the fact that there will be tax increases - they announced plans to that effect the other day. It comes down to whether you want people to to pay less tax and have crap public services and ammenities or whether you want people who can afford it to pay a bit more tax in order to increase funding.

I really do wonder how many moderate Tory voters, who saw themselves in Dominic Grieve, Rory Stewart, and other moderates who have left the party, will be looking at the party now and wondering if they'll be able to vote for it.

For all her faults, at least Theresa May was trying to keep a divided party together. Boris Johnson has effectively chosen one side, and gone all in. The inevitable risk in doing that is that you lose those voters who were attracted by the side you've abandoned.

You could argue that Jeremy Corbyn has done the same to the Labour Party, but I don't think it's been quite as stark or sudden a lurch.

Its also comes down to your philosophy of whether you should have the level of service you can afford, or everyone should be entitled to the same.

A tory philosophy is lower tax for individuals, and if you have money, you pay for better things and if you don't have money, you can afford something worse.

A labour philosophy is higher tax, with the more well off paying more (by nature of their higher income plus higher tax rates), that money funding a public service where everyone has the same standard.

For things like education, health care etc, I am fully behind the labour philosophy. Broadband - I'm not sure I see it as crucial enough to the standard of living just yet

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

It won't be free in the same way that the NHS isn't free.  

As mentioned on the other thread - you can apply the same logic to anything that is funded by the tax payer.  Labour aren't hiding the fact that there will be tax increases - they announced plans to that effect the other day.  It comes down to whether you want people to to pay less tax and have crap public services and ammenities or whether you want people who can afford it to pay a bit more tax in order to increase funding.  

But if you remember our history, nationalising industries and throwing money at them is no guarantee of making them work better. If you don't, just do some research into British Rail, British Leyland and the National Coal Board.

No doubt the NHS needs more funding, as we have an ageing population with increasing health problems.

But the KEY factor is that the money has to be spent wisely, in ways that actually result in improved capabilities and services.

I'm always sceptical whenever any government or politician makes grand announcements about making X billion pounds in extra funding available, because I keep coming back to the same question: how are you going to ensure the money is spent effectively?

Its also not just a question of extra taxation. The price of the services invariably go up, to deal with the running costs. So not that different from privatisation really. We still get crap service whichever way we go...

The problem is that it is becoming increasingly harder to manage your life without access to the internet.

For banking, job applications, paying for utilities, and access to large parts of the civil service e.g. applying for benefits etc. it's increasingly assumed that the user will have internet access. The problem is then exasperated with the closing down of bank branches, post offices and libraries.

Free broadband could also ensure access to education and knowledge that were previously offered to the poor by libraries.

dyrewolfe wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

It won't be free in the same way that the NHS isn't free.  

As mentioned on the other thread - you can apply the same logic to anything that is funded by the tax payer.  Labour aren't hiding the fact that there will be tax increases - they announced plans to that effect the other day.  It comes down to whether you want people to to pay less tax and have crap public services and ammenities or whether you want people who can afford it to pay a bit more tax in order to increase funding.  

But if you remember our history, nationalising industries and throwing money at them is no guarantee of making them work better. If you don't, just do some research into British Rail, British Leyland and the National Coal Board.

No doubt the NHS needs more funding, as we have an ageing population with increasing health problems.

But the KEY factor is that the money has to be spent wisely, in ways that actually result in improved capabilities and services.

I'm always sceptical whenever any government or politician makes grand announcements about making X billion pounds in extra funding available, because I keep coming back to the same question: how are you going to ensure the money is spent effectively?

Its also not just a question of extra taxation. The price of the services invariably go up, to deal with the running costs. So not that different from privatisation really. We still get crap service whichever way we go...

I don't necessarily disagree with all of that, but no public services ever got better by not investing in them.

If you have reliable broadband everywhere, then depending on the job you do, you can work from anywhere, which in theory would go some way to counteracting the brain drain you get in rural parts of the country.

superflyweight wrote:The problem is that it is becoming increasingly harder to manage your life without access to the internet.  

For banking, job applications, paying for utilities, and access to large parts of the civil service e.g. applying for benefits etc. it's increasingly assumed that the user will have internet access.  The problem is then exasperated with the closing down of bank branches, post offices and libraries.  

Free broadband could also ensure access to education and knowledge that were previously offered to the poor by libraries.  

Well government organisations do have their own independent wi-fi services, which allow staff to get onto the government "intranet".

Maybe rather than getting BT to install thousands of miles of fibre optic cable, they could instead install a network of masts that provide free wi-fi to students, the unemployed etc?

Obviously it would be great for the whole country to have Gigabit internet eventually. But this seems a quicker & cheaper solution to give the poorest decent access, rather than nationalising BT and embarking on a massive rush-job to dig up streets everywhere (which also causes traffic chaos).


Rather disturbing new development: Ann Widdecombe claiming she was "contacted by someone at No.10" who "offered her a role in negotiations" if she agreed to stand down as as BP candidate...

Boris denying any knowledge - and (if true) its quite possible it was done without his knowledge. But further eroding my already shaky faith in the Conservatives.  

dyrewolfe wrote:

superflyweight wrote:The problem is that it is becoming increasingly harder to manage your life without access to the internet.  

For banking, job applications, paying for utilities, and access to large parts of the civil service e.g. applying for benefits etc. it's increasingly assumed that the user will have internet access.  The problem is then exasperated with the closing down of bank branches, post offices and libraries.  

Free broadband could also ensure access to education and knowledge that were previously offered to the poor by libraries.  

Well government organisations do have their own independent wi-fi services, which allow staff to get onto the government "intranet".

Maybe rather than getting BT to install thousands of miles of fibre optic cable, they could instead install a network of masts that provide free wi-fi to students, the unemployed etc?

Obviously it would be great for the whole country to have Gigabit internet eventually. But this seems a quicker & cheaper solution to give the poorest decent access, rather than nationalising BT and embarking on a massive rush-job to dig up streets everywhere (which also causes traffic chaos).


Rather disturbing new development: Ann Widdecombe claiming she was "contacted by someone at No.10" who "offered her a role in negotiations" if she agreed to stand down as as BP candidate...

Boris denying any knowledge - and (if true) its quite possible it was done without his knowledge. But further eroding my already shaky faith in the Conservatives.  

That's more 5g territory than actual WI-FI at which point you're taking on huge multinational companies and that isn't going to end well.

The Widdecombe thing could well be true but I can't imagine anyone in government is at all bothered by her nor would they want her involved in any way, before she stood down in 2010 it was clear through conversation that her grasp of modern reality was lost.

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

It won't be free in the same way that the NHS isn't free.  

As mentioned on the other thread - you can apply the same logic to anything that is funded by the tax payer.  Labour aren't hiding the fact that there will be tax increases - they announced plans to that effect the other day.  It comes down to whether you want people to to pay less tax and have crap public services and ammenities or whether you want people who can afford it to pay a bit more tax in order to increase funding.  

Yes, absolutely agree. Simply to trumpet 'Free broadband!' is disingenuous. How about a mature conversation in politics for once? Stop it with the sh!tty soundbites for once.

dyrewolfe wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

It won't be free in the same way that the NHS isn't free.  

As mentioned on the other thread - you can apply the same logic to anything that is funded by the tax payer.  Labour aren't hiding the fact that there will be tax increases - they announced plans to that effect the other day.  It comes down to whether you want people to to pay less tax and have crap public services and ammenities or whether you want people who can afford it to pay a bit more tax in order to increase funding.  

But if you remember our history, nationalising industries and throwing money at them is no guarantee of making them work better. If you don't, just do some research into British Rail, British Leyland and the National Coal Board.

No doubt the NHS needs more funding, as we have an ageing population with increasing health problems.

But the KEY factor is that the money has to be spent wisely, in ways that actually result in improved capabilities and services.

I'm always sceptical whenever any government or politician makes grand announcements about making X billion pounds in extra funding available, because I keep coming back to the same question: how are you going to ensure the money is spent effectively?

Its also not just a question of extra taxation. The price of the services invariably go up, to deal with the running costs. So not that different from privatisation really. We still get crap service whichever way we go...

One of the biggest flaws with socialism and nationalising stuff. They are not running to make a profit, so the incentive to be as efficient as possible is greatly diminished.

I'm still trying to get a handle on this election - seems there's a few contradictions - the only certainty I feel is that SNP will gain seats north of the border and will end up with almost a clean sweep north of the border.

Other than that...

Labour are releasing lots of popular (mostly sensible with just occasional exception) policies, yet Corbyn remains unpopular amongst the electorate as a whole.
The Tories are leading the polls still but popular, charismatic, charming, erudite man-of-the-people Johnson is getting lots of flak wherever he turns up in the campaign.  Whilst I remember May getting heckled, Osborne getting booed at the Olympics and Brown encountering that 'bigoted woman' I don't recall Cameron getting anywhere near the amount of grief that Johnson has, and I always remember 'call me Dave' handling tricky encounters with public better than Johnson has been doing.
Lib Dems stand to gain the most seats in this election and have had some well timed defections from other parties, swelling their numbers with some good candidates (Berger from Labour and Woolaston from Tories).  However, they appear to be sliding in opinion polls and from what I've seen so far, Swinson is playing a good set of cards poorly.
The election is supposed to be about Brexit, yet Farage appears to be on the retreat, and his 'I'm not going to vote' stance is hardly going to inspire his followers to go out and vote to 'get Brexit done'.

I really feel we need some in-depth coverage of what's going on in the marginals, as the election and what happens after, will depend on the following:

Labour gains from Tories - not many expected, but these make huge difference in balance of parliament - keep an eye on a couple of outer-London constituencies e.g. IDS, and Theresa Villiers.
Tory gains from Labour - Polling appears to suggest the Tories are performing well in Brexity Midlands seats, and this is where they could scoop up a few from Labour.  Not sure about the North though - if Johnson starts picking up a few seats there he is definitely in for a majority.
Lib Dem gains from Tory - Even if Swinson has a poor campaign because of the salience of Brexit for Remain minded households, you would expect Lib Dems to pick up at least 10-12 seats from Tories in West Country, South-West London and also possibly with some big swings in home county commuter belt.  They may pick up a couple from Labour.  A lot may depend on tactical voting - Swinson's v aggressive posturing against Corbyn may play well with Remain Tories in the South East, but less well with left-of-centre tactical voters elsewhere.
Wales: Not normally somewhere with huge amounts of seats changing hands.  If Labour lose to the Tories here then we're definitely looking at a decent Tory majority.  Could Labour be hit by a squeeze from Remain vote going way of Lib Dem/Plaid and Brexit going to Tory/Brexit party?  Labour could pick up a seat in North Wales - Aberconwy where they came close last time and Remain minded Tory-turned-independent Guto Bebb is standing down.

I hate making predictions where I feel personally invested in what's going to happen - dreading a Tory majority and don't want to tempt fate - will therefore predict a Tory majority similar to what Cameron had in 2015 - hope I'm wrong though.

Radio5 live interview with Boris Johnson.

Boris - "immigration between EU countries and non EU countries"

Interviewer - " that's wrong, by official figures the actual number is 200,000 from non EU countries, 59,000 from eu countries"


And then moved on. Wether you like Jeremy Corbyn or not, if he'd said that ever news outlet would be screaming about it now.

Sorry Boris's full quote was that it's about 50/50

In terms of predictions, I would currently look at the Tories winning around 350-370 seats, Labour 210-230, SNP around 40-50, Plaid with a few, Greens 1, Brexit Party with 0.

Lib Dems are very tough to predict, as ever - with 'Cleggmania' in 2010 they actually went down in seats won, despite getting their highest ever vote share, and in 2017 they gained seats from their 2015 result despite declining in vote share! They could win anywhere from 10-40 seats this time around and I wouldn't be surprised either way.

There's still just under four weeks to go (hooray!) so much can change. Let's see if the manifestos and debates and (possible) gaffes alter the complexion of things.

Only a couple of things I'm certain of - Tories will win the most seats by a comfortable margin (though majority/minority is still in the air) and the SNP will win the vast majority of Scottish seats.

Lib Dems leader Jo swinson has come out and said, that if no party wins a majority, she is going to demand another election.

In terms of predictions, I honestly can't see past this being a hung parliament. With the Tories probably having the larger share.

Afro wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Corbyn's Labour have previously expressed a desire to renationalise gas and electricity.  

I imagine the cost of doing so is prohibitive in the short term (it would involve buying out some massive companies) and therefore it makes more sense to announce a plan for broadband first as it will be less expensive.  

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I have no problems with the idea of free broadband.      

It won't actually be 'free' though, will it? To suggest it will be is absurd and disingenuous. Then again, this is a politician speaking - all of them born with the innate abilities of snake oil salesmen and women.

It won't be free in the same way that the NHS isn't free.  

As mentioned on the other thread - you can apply the same logic to anything that is funded by the tax payer.  Labour aren't hiding the fact that there will be tax increases - they announced plans to that effect the other day.  It comes down to whether you want people to to pay less tax and have crap public services and ammenities or whether you want people who can afford it to pay a bit more tax in order to increase funding.  

But if you remember our history, nationalising industries and throwing money at them is no guarantee of making them work better. If you don't, just do some research into British Rail, British Leyland and the National Coal Board.

No doubt the NHS needs more funding, as we have an ageing population with increasing health problems.

But the KEY factor is that the money has to be spent wisely, in ways that actually result in improved capabilities and services.

I'm always sceptical whenever any government or politician makes grand announcements about making X billion pounds in extra funding available, because I keep coming back to the same question: how are you going to ensure the money is spent effectively?

Its also not just a question of extra taxation. The price of the services invariably go up, to deal with the running costs. So not that different from privatisation really. We still get crap service whichever way we go...

One of the biggest flaws with socialism and nationalising stuff. They are not running to make a profit, so the incentive to be as efficient as possible is greatly diminished.

OK, but surely this is an ethos? There's no a priori reason that publicly run services shouldn't be efficient. Certainly, it's definitely not a case of private = good and public = bad. Both are capable of some serious clusterf*ckery.

Duty281 wrote:In terms of predictions, I would currently look at the Tories winning around 350-370 seats, Labour 210-230, SNP around 40-50, Plaid with a few, Greens 1, Brexit Party with 0.

Lib Dems are very tough to predict, as ever - with 'Cleggmania' in 2010 they actually went down in seats won, despite getting their highest ever vote share, and in 2017 they gained seats from their 2015 result despite declining in vote share! They could win anywhere from 10-40 seats this time around and I wouldn't be surprised either way.

There's still just under four weeks to go (hooray!) so much can change. Let's see if the manifestos and debates and (possible) gaffes alter the complexion of things.

Only a couple of things I'm certain of - Tories will win the most seats by a comfortable margin (though majority/minority is still in the air) and the SNP will win the vast majority of Scottish seats.

More evidence of the sh!te that is our childish FPTP electoral system. Not that I liked them, but didn't UKIP poll ~5m votes in 2015 vs. ~1.8m for the SNP, but UKIP had 1(?) MP as a result, whereas SNP had >30 didn't they? "Democracy" in action. Bollox.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:In terms of predictions, I would currently look at the Tories winning around 350-370 seats, Labour 210-230, SNP around 40-50, Plaid with a few, Greens 1, Brexit Party with 0.

Lib Dems are very tough to predict, as ever - with 'Cleggmania' in 2010 they actually went down in seats won, despite getting their highest ever vote share, and in 2017 they gained seats from their 2015 result despite declining in vote share! They could win anywhere from 10-40 seats this time around and I wouldn't be surprised either way.

There's still just under four weeks to go (hooray!) so much can change. Let's see if the manifestos and debates and (possible) gaffes alter the complexion of things.

Only a couple of things I'm certain of - Tories will win the most seats by a comfortable margin (though majority/minority is still in the air) and the SNP will win the vast majority of Scottish seats.

More evidence of the sh!te that is our childish FPTP electoral system. Not that I liked them, but didn't UKIP poll ~5m votes in 2015 vs. ~1.8m for the SNP, but UKIP had 1(?) MP as a result, whereas SNP had >30 didn't they? "Democracy" in action. Bollox.

Yes, UKIP's 3.8 million votes and 1 MP v the SNP's 1.5 million votes and 56 MPs!

MrInvisible wrote:I'm still trying to get a handle on this election - seems there's a few contradictions - the only certainty I feel is that SNP will gain seats north of the border and will end up with almost a clean sweep north of the border.

Other than that...

Labour are releasing lots of popular (mostly sensible with just occasional exception) policies, yet Corbyn remains unpopular amongst the electorate as a whole.
The Tories are leading the polls still but popular, charismatic, charming, erudite man-of-the-people Johnson is getting lots of flak wherever he turns up in the campaign.  Whilst I remember May getting heckled, Osborne getting booed at the Olympics and Brown encountering that 'bigoted woman' I don't recall Cameron getting anywhere near the amount of grief that Johnson has, and I always remember 'call me Dave' handling tricky encounters with public better than Johnson has been doing.
Lib Dems stand to gain the most seats in this election and have had some well timed defections from other parties, swelling their numbers with some good candidates (Berger from Labour and Woolaston from Tories).  However, they appear to be sliding in opinion polls and from what I've seen so far, Swinson is playing a good set of cards poorly.
The election is supposed to be about Brexit, yet Farage appears to be on the retreat, and his 'I'm not going to vote' stance is hardly going to inspire his followers to go out and vote to 'get Brexit done'.

I really feel we need some in-depth coverage of what's going on in the marginals, as the election and what happens after, will depend on the following:

Labour gains from Tories - not many expected, but these make huge difference in balance of parliament - keep an eye on a couple of outer-London constituencies e.g. IDS, and Theresa Villiers.
Tory gains from Labour - Polling appears to suggest the Tories are performing well in Brexity Midlands seats, and this is where they could scoop up a few from Labour.  Not sure about the North though - if Johnson starts picking up a few seats there he is definitely in for a majority.
Lib Dem gains from Tory - Even if Swinson has a poor campaign because of the salience of Brexit for Remain minded households, you would expect Lib Dems to pick up at least 10-12 seats from Tories in West Country, South-West London and also possibly with some big swings in home county commuter belt.  They may pick up a couple from Labour.  A lot may depend on tactical voting - Swinson's v aggressive posturing against Corbyn may play well with Remain Tories in the South East, but less well with left-of-centre tactical voters elsewhere.
Wales: Not normally somewhere with huge amounts of seats changing hands.  If Labour lose to the Tories here then we're definitely looking at a decent Tory majority.  Could Labour be hit by a squeeze from Remain vote going way of Lib Dem/Plaid and Brexit going to Tory/Brexit party?  Labour could pick up a seat in North Wales - Aberconwy where they came close last time and Remain minded Tory-turned-independent Guto Bebb is standing down.

I hate making predictions where I feel personally invested in what's going to happen - dreading a Tory majority and don't want to tempt fate - will therefore predict a Tory majority similar to what Cameron had in 2015 - hope I'm wrong though.

The Tories' campaign in Wales was hit before it had even started with Alun Cairns's resignation as Welsh Secretary, and I believe other opposition parties have come to an agreement so that only one of them is going to stand against him in the Vale of Glamorgan. They also didn't help themselves by nominating Chris Davies, whose expenses fiddling led to the Brecon and Radnorshire by election which he lost, as their candidate in Ynys Mon. They've since pulled him as their candidate there. I don't know where that leaves them in terms of chances of winning seats, but you'd think they'll have taken a knock.

I know the Brexit Party are targeting leave-voting Labour constituencies in south Wales, but the question remains for me, here and across the UK, is how willing people are going to be to vote for a party with pretty much one policy. Protest votes in European or local elections are one thing, but in a general election? People know this really matters. Will lifelong Labour voters really want to enable a Tory government, either directly or indirectly?

(N.B. I know European and local elections matter, but you know what I mean.)

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

MrInvisible wrote:I'm still trying to get a handle on this election - seems there's a few contradictions - the only certainty I feel is that SNP will gain seats north of the border and will end up with almost a clean sweep north of the border.

Other than that...

Labour are releasing lots of popular (mostly sensible with just occasional exception) policies, yet Corbyn remains unpopular amongst the electorate as a whole.
The Tories are leading the polls still but popular, charismatic, charming, erudite man-of-the-people Johnson is getting lots of flak wherever he turns up in the campaign.  Whilst I remember May getting heckled, Osborne getting booed at the Olympics and Brown encountering that 'bigoted woman' I don't recall Cameron getting anywhere near the amount of grief that Johnson has, and I always remember 'call me Dave' handling tricky encounters with public better than Johnson has been doing.
Lib Dems stand to gain the most seats in this election and have had some well timed defections from other parties, swelling their numbers with some good candidates (Berger from Labour and Woolaston from Tories).  However, they appear to be sliding in opinion polls and from what I've seen so far, Swinson is playing a good set of cards poorly.
The election is supposed to be about Brexit, yet Farage appears to be on the retreat, and his 'I'm not going to vote' stance is hardly going to inspire his followers to go out and vote to 'get Brexit done'.

I really feel we need some in-depth coverage of what's going on in the marginals, as the election and what happens after, will depend on the following:

Labour gains from Tories - not many expected, but these make huge difference in balance of parliament - keep an eye on a couple of outer-London constituencies e.g. IDS, and Theresa Villiers.
Tory gains from Labour - Polling appears to suggest the Tories are performing well in Brexity Midlands seats, and this is where they could scoop up a few from Labour.  Not sure about the North though - if Johnson starts picking up a few seats there he is definitely in for a majority.
Lib Dem gains from Tory - Even if Swinson has a poor campaign because of the salience of Brexit for Remain minded households, you would expect Lib Dems to pick up at least 10-12 seats from Tories in West Country, South-West London and also possibly with some big swings in home county commuter belt.  They may pick up a couple from Labour.  A lot may depend on tactical voting - Swinson's v aggressive posturing against Corbyn may play well with Remain Tories in the South East, but less well with left-of-centre tactical voters elsewhere.
Wales: Not normally somewhere with huge amounts of seats changing hands.  If Labour lose to the Tories here then we're definitely looking at a decent Tory majority.  Could Labour be hit by a squeeze from Remain vote going way of Lib Dem/Plaid and Brexit going to Tory/Brexit party?  Labour could pick up a seat in North Wales - Aberconwy where they came close last time and Remain minded Tory-turned-independent Guto Bebb is standing down.

I hate making predictions where I feel personally invested in what's going to happen - dreading a Tory majority and don't want to tempt fate - will therefore predict a Tory majority similar to what Cameron had in 2015 - hope I'm wrong though.

The Tories' campaign in Wales was hit before it had even started with Alun Cairns's resignation as Welsh Secretary, and I believe other opposition parties have come to an agreement so that only one of them is going to stand against him in the Vale of Glamorgan. They also didn't help themselves by nominating Chris Davies, whose expenses fiddling led to the Brecon and Radnorshire by election which he lost, as their candidate in Ynys Mon. They've since pulled him as their candidate there. I don't know where that leaves them in terms of chances of winning seats, but you'd think they'll have taken a knock.

I know the Brexit Party are targeting leave-voting Labour constituencies in south Wales, but the question remains for me, here and across the UK, is how willing people are going to be to vote for a party with pretty much one policy. Protest votes in European or local elections are one thing, but in a general election? People know this really matters. Will lifelong Labour voters really want to enable a Tory government, either directly or indirectly?

(N.B. I know European and local elections matter, but you know what I mean.)

I wouldn't count on it. These are many of the same people who voted to Leave the EU with the justification of either a protest vote or to send the Asian community "home" (or less polite words to that effect).

Yeah but that was a referendum. It's still not the same.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Yeah but that was a referendum. It's still not the same.

It still really mattered as the last 3 and half years have shown. Possibly more so than this general election

I see your point, but I suspect you also see mine.

Con keep squeezing the BXP....Farage down to 5 in Kantar poll..Great poll for the Tories..

Con 43
Lab 30
Lib 15

Some faint hope for the rebel army though is the Cons lost 3 Seats last night in local contests..2 to Lib Dems...1 to Labour.

Maybe some tacticals are in play...Going to be painful if there aren't..

See Trump is visiting.....Brightside for Claudius is it makes him look Prime Ministerial....Downside is that Labour desperately need 18-24s to vote and they hate the Bigot.

Brexit Party are down to 5% (from 10% or so) because they won't be standing in over half of the constituencies (267 confirmed candidates, I believe) - the polls are now starting to reflect that.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I see your point, but I suspect you also see mine.

Indeed

I don't see the local/european elections results translating to the number of seats won in parliament either. Because of both the increased importance and because of FPTP

I might be underestimating the strength of feeling among Labour leave voters, but the key thing will be where Brexit is on their list of priorities - and that's assuming they all still want to go ahead with it.

Additionally, Labour aren't technically a remain party, so on the face of it there's no reason for Labour leave voters to switch parties at all. Maybe this fence-sitting strategy is a masterstroke!

https://nation.cymru/news/yougov-plaid-cymru-most-trusted-to-represent-welsh-interests-in-westminster/?fbclid=IwAR21OJBkNaJRqoUwXMBcFnBCDAd124zRVxGEsVLuU0W6LnAAwj69tc4ybL4

Voters consider Plaid Cymru the party they most trust to represent Wales’ interests at Westminster, with the Conservatives in second place, according to a new poll.

The YouGov poll showed that 32% trusted Plaid Cymru to represent Wales’ interest at Westminster, followed by 21% for the Conservatives and 20% for Labour.

The question ‘Which political party do you trust most to represent Wales and Welsh interests in the Houses of Parliament?

These polls don't half get my hopes up

Labour certainly need tacticals in Wales for sure....Brexit fence sitting has hurt them considerably..

As for this new free Broadband policy...

Yougov..

Support 62%
Against.22%...

Conservatives could be facing criminal charges, as police are assessing claims that they offered Nigel Farage and 8 other Brexit party candidates peerages if they stood down.
This follows on from Boris interviews yesterday when he made a number of questionable claims, and lies from his time as London mayor onwards.

Meanwhile Jo Swinson wants stop Brexit on the ballot paper.

Wonder what it's like to live in a country with grown up MPs and politics.

Tories lead by 15 points with 3 pollsters and look set for a big Party in more ways than one....

But a little food for thought with weighting on these polls..

Kantar who has the Tories 10 points ahead...This is their current weights on age group turnout ..vs actual 2017 GE turnout in brackets..

18-24....31% (58%)
25-34....40% (62%)
35-44....51% (64%)
45-54... 56% (68%)
55-64....77% (74%)
65+.......90% (80%)

As you can see the groups Labour does well in 18-34 are weighted down substantially and the groups the Tories do best in have been weighted up ....55+

Now this could be spot on who knows ??..But it is worth noting..

Labour recently hit 33% in one poll - the first poll they've scored over 31% in for a long time. Outlier or start of a trend? Less good for Labour is the Tories are starting to consistently hit over the 40% mark (in 7 of the last 8 polls; the one that didn't have the Tories at 40%+ didn't take into account the BP's standing down decision) and even getting as high as 45% with some. Chance of a Tory majority is strengthening as Ladbrokes now make it a 1/2 shot.

'Free' broadband was a good headline-grabber, but Labour needs lots more of that if they're to have any hope of defeating the Tories.

Luke wrote:Conservatives could be facing criminal charges, as police are assessing claims that they offered Nigel Farage and 8 other Brexit party candidates peerages if they stood down.
This follows on from Boris interviews yesterday when he made a number of questionable claims, and lies from his time as London mayor onwards.

Meanwhile Jo Swinson wants stop Brexit on the ballot paper.

Wonder what it's like to live in a country with grown up MPs and politics.

With respect, who cares anymore? Just more illustration of our system. Anyway, think it'll need a bit more than the say-so of Farage to garner any sort of conviction.
Maybe they've been a bit dumber with upfront offers, but anyone who thinks this sort of thing (or post hoc peerages for dubious services rendered) hasn't gone on for a long time needs their head examining.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tories lead by 15 points with 3 pollsters and look set for a big Party in more ways than one....

But a little food for thought with weighting on these polls..

Kantar who has the Tories 10 points ahead...This is their current weights on age group turnout ..vs actual 2017 GE turnout in brackets..

18-24....31% (58%)
25-34....40% (62%)
35-44....51% (64%)
45-54... 56% (68%)
55-64....77% (74%)
65+.......90% (80%)

As you can see the groups Labour does well in 18-34 are weighted down substantially and the groups the Tories do best in have been weighted up ....55+

Now this could be spot on who knows ??..But it is worth noting..

Always been like this though, hasn't it? Young people are all right on and radical when free, single and with few cares. As they get older, have a life, mortgage, kids, pension etc, then they amazingly move to the right. Who'da thought it? I would think that with an increasing age demographic and less children born, this would be more of an issue going forward for Labour.

It also says a lot about the prevailing "I'm alright, Jack" attitude in the UK right now.

Pr4wn wrote:It also says a lot about the prevailing "I'm alright, Jack" attitude in the UK right now.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it does. Why would you expect older people to be more "I'm alright, Jack" than carefree youth? Especially those in the 65+ bracket who, with all due respect to them, have most of their lives behind them?
It suggests that as people age, they acquire more responsibilities, many of which require money. It also suggests that increased experience of life, realities and how economies work, might have something to do with it.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It also says a lot about the prevailing "I'm alright, Jack" attitude in the UK right now.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it does. Why would you expect older people to be more "I'm alright, Jack" than carefree youth? Especially those in the 65+ bracket who, with all due respect to them, have most of their lives behind them?
It suggests that as people age, they acquire more responsibilities, many of which require money. It also suggests that increased experience of life, realities and how economies work, might have something to do with it.

It could also partly be that those who are older lived through periods of either economic uncertainty under Labour governments (particularly 1974-79), and also a period of cold war and propaganda where Russia and Socialism were the enemies, which in turn influences their view of labour

Afro wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It also says a lot about the prevailing "I'm alright, Jack" attitude in the UK right now.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it does. Why would you expect older people to be more "I'm alright, Jack" than carefree youth? Especially those in the 65+ bracket who, with all due respect to them, have most of their lives behind them?
It suggests that as people age, they acquire more responsibilities, many of which require money. It also suggests that increased experience of life, realities and how economies work, might have something to do with it.

It could also partly be that those who are older lived through periods of either economic uncertainty under Labour governments (particularly 1974-79), and also a period of cold war and propaganda where Russia and Socialism were the enemies, which in turn influences their view of labour

Could be they have selective amnesia too...I remember Black Wednesday and a recession happening twenty five years or so ago and I don't remember John Major ever being 'Labour'..

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luke wrote:Conservatives could be facing criminal charges, as police are assessing claims that they offered Nigel Farage and 8 other Brexit party candidates peerages if they stood down.
This follows on from Boris interviews yesterday when he made a number of questionable claims, and lies from his time as London mayor onwards.

Meanwhile Jo Swinson wants stop Brexit on the ballot paper.

Wonder what it's like to live in a country with grown up MPs and politics.

With respect, who cares anymore? Just more illustration of our system. Anyway, think it'll need a bit more than the say-so of Farage to garner any sort of conviction.
Maybe they've been a bit dumber with upfront offers, but anyone who thinks this sort of thing (or post hoc peerages for dubious services rendered) hasn't gone on for a long time needs their head examining.

I agree, I'm trying to keep interested. And have a sort of outrage at the lies and rubbish like this. But I must have become numb at some point. I'll go I'll vote, and when the results come in just think we've got the government we deserve.

Well you can't complain if you don't vote.

Any other era and the Russia report would kill this government (and the referendum result)

Afro wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:It also says a lot about the prevailing "I'm alright, Jack" attitude in the UK right now.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it does. Why would you expect older people to be more "I'm alright, Jack" than carefree youth? Especially those in the 65+ bracket who, with all due respect to them, have most of their lives behind them?
It suggests that as people age, they acquire more responsibilities, many of which require money. It also suggests that increased experience of life, realities and how economies work, might have something to do with it.

It could also partly be that those who are older lived through periods of either economic uncertainty under Labour governments (particularly 1974-79), and also a period of cold war and propaganda where Russia and Socialism were the enemies, which in turn influences their view of labour

We have had years of Conservative MP's not being able to say anything until they have first said that all our economic woes are down to Labour, and a couple of years of no Labour commentator being able to mention Lib Dems without the words 'austerity' and/or 'tuition fees'. The reality is different, and I am sure we have had Labour and Conservative governments which have been good for business and bad. As for the current government, its glorious leader is on record as saying 'f**k business'

Survation......Who will make the best PM

Johnson...........47% +6
Corbyn............16% -2
Swinson...........15% -6

Going to have to change....Unless its a landslide....

Problem is everyone seems Brexit fixated and its giving our Racist..Mysogynistic...Bigoted...Liar a free ride..

"I got no money....Can't get an operation and I'm being evicted in the Morning....But Boris is going to get Brexit done so I'm voting Tory !!!"

Big test for Corbyn in tonights debate. He cant focus too much on attacking Johnson, needs to be clear and concise to counter any points Johnson makes against him.

With all the various scandals around the Tories right now, Johnson is there for the taking. If Corbyn doesnt come out of this looking like a winner then he can kiss goodbye to any slim chance he had at a majority.