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.

Both Corbyn and Johnson struggled. I think Swinson benefitted from not being allowed on, because she came across well in her interview afterwards, and that may have not been the case if she was having to answer awkward questions on the spot with Corbyn and Johnson throwing shade.

Marky wrote:Both Corbyn and Johnson struggled. I think Swinson benefitted from not being allowed on, because she came across well in her interview afterwards, and that may have not been the case if she was having to answer awkward questions on the spot with Corbyn and Johnson throwing shade.

No....The Leadership debate was primetime and had a greater reach....It also promoted the view this race is Johnson v Corbyn and everyone else is a minor character..

Not good for Swinson..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Marky wrote:Both Corbyn and Johnson struggled. I think Swinson benefitted from not being allowed on, because she came across well in her interview afterwards, and that may have not been the case if she was having to answer awkward questions on the spot with Corbyn and Johnson throwing shade.

No....The Leadership debate was primetime and had a greater reach....It also promoted the view this race is Johnson v Corbyn and everyone else is a minor character..

Not good for Swinson..

I disagree, and think Marky is right.

What it showed is that we have two leaders of the main parties who are not up to it, and get laughed at live on TV. It will have made people stop and look at the other options they have. In this case the lack of exposure has benefitted.

I've got to agree with Truss here, all of the talk is about Johnson and Corbyn the rest are just a sideshow that people aren't interested in.

Agree with Truss also. The people who were going to vote for other options already were. This just reinstated the view for neutrals that there's only really 2 parties going to be fighting for government.

Is there no beginning to the talents of our 'leading' politicians these days?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50497288

Yeah, because this will work with Labour Man/Woman, won't it? Tax the petrochemical industry, who of course won't pass that on at the petrol pumps; pumps which already dispense some of the highest taxed fuel on the planet. **** off.

Interesting poll by yougov. Apparently Jeremy Corbyn won the TV debate for undecided voters. So gives him a little bit of hope then.

I was off yesterday, and I'm surprised that no one has commented on the Tories rebranding their press office Twitter account as 'Fact Check UK' during the debate on Tuesday. I thought it was outrageous.

Soul Requiem wrote:I've got to agree with Truss here, all of the talk is about Johnson and Corbyn the rest are just a sideshow that people aren't interested in.

Luke wrote:Agree with Truss also. The people who were going to vote for other options already were. This just reinstated the view for neutrals that there's only really 2 parties going to be fighting for government.

What this demonstrates to me is that it probably did a bit of both then.

I am a traditional Labour voter who struggles with Jeremy Corbyn as a leader. My main concern this election is for the Tories to have as little power as possible, and therefore I am toying with the idea of voting Lib Dem as a tactical vote.

What the debate did for me was put both in the spotlight to do themselves damage. I came out of it thinking 1) I want Boris as PM even less; 2) Jeremy Corbyn is not a strong enough leader to be PM and 3) therefore, I am now more inclined to vote for the Lib Dems.

So essentially, from the perspective of my vote, by not being in the spotlight, Jo Swinson has done herself no damage, whereas the other two have. And I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Three weeks to go. Tories still averaging a double digit lead over Labour, meaning a majority and at least 100 more seats than Labour.

Labour desperately need some cut through from their manifesto launch today.

Labour manifesto seems radical but not too radical..Costings are extremely optimistic if you are being nice..But that is to be expected.

Very much an Us v Them...Pick a side document..

So far the Public are going for...'Them'..

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I've got to agree with Truss here, all of the talk is about Johnson and Corbyn the rest are just a sideshow that people aren't interested in.

Luke wrote:Agree with Truss also. The people who were going to vote for other options already were. This just reinstated the view for neutrals that there's only really 2 parties going to be fighting for government.

What this demonstrates to me is that it probably did a bit of both then.

I am a traditional Labour voter who struggles with Jeremy Corbyn as a leader. My main concern this election is for the Tories to have as little power as possible, and therefore I am toying with the idea of voting Lib Dem as a tactical vote.

What the debate did for me was put both in the spotlight to do themselves damage. I came out of it thinking 1) I want Boris as PM even less; 2) Jeremy Corbyn is not a strong enough leader to be PM and 3) therefore, I am now more inclined to vote for the Lib Dems.

So essentially, from the perspective of my vote, by not being in the spotlight, Jo Swinson has done herself no damage, whereas the other two have. And I'm sure I can't be the only one.

I'm more left leaning in my politics.

the debate didn't really change my views on either. Corbyn is an excellent back bencher, but as a leader is not decisive enough. Boris is a narcissistic, bombastic person. Who can only answer certain questions, and struggle's In on the spot questions (like the NI question). My biggest issue with the debate was how long they spent on Brexit.

The problem I honestly have, is I don't like any of the leaders (Caroline Lucas is probably the best in my opinion), and don't want any of them as prime minister. So my vote is going to be very much based on the manifesto which has the most going for it.

Brexit is going to cost billions and hundreds of thousands of Families will suffer..

But you are going to wait for the best manifesto or can't vote LABOUR because of Corbyn..

UK is screwed..

I didn't say I can't vote labour cause of Corbyn. I said I don't like any of the leaders, so am going for the manifesto that I believe will put the country in better shape wether brexit happens or not (which it probably will).

That to me is better than just voting, because of one topic. which if that is the only reason to vote, your voting lib Dems or conservative anyway.

I won’t vote Labour cos the Lib Dems are the best Tory opposition in my area.

I also would struggle to vote for Corbyn.

See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

It is a weird one. I guess driven by the need that any result to overturn the original would have to be fairly conclusive, otherwise it will just result in Leave voters rightly questioning why the 2nd vote carries more weight than the 1st, and calling for another one further down the line.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

If that was their policy, it would be in the manifesto, wouldn't it?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

If that was their policy, it would be in the manifesto, wouldn't it?

I believe that is a quote or extrapolation from something that the shining wit* that is Barry Gardiner came up with a couple of years ago. There is probably no truth that that is a position that the Labour party would take but you never know. Can't help thinking there would be a lot of internal resistance to something so stupid.



* As Mrs Malaprop would say

Afro wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

It is a weird one. I guess driven by the need that any result to overturn the original would have to be fairly conclusive, otherwise it will just result in Leave voters rightly questioning why the 2nd vote carries more weight than the 1st, and calling for another one further down the line.

Exactly - on to round 3 then.

Fact is the result was always going to be close to 50-50. I doubt it would even be 60-40 in the current climate.

What percentage constitutes a "mandate"?

51%?

I think that if this is true it will make things even worse. Are they saying if it was 60-40 to Remain, then it wouldn't be enough? Seems like they are tying themselves in knots, so I think this isn't the case.

If a 2nd referendum goes ahead, two things need to happen:

1. Electorate understand that this is THE referendum and we are having the vote again because "they know more now then they did back then" (rightly or wrongly - not getting into that debate)
2. All parties vote BEFORE the referendum that the result will be carried out. This needs to be double locked down. If they choose not to vote yes to this, then a 2nd referedum will not go ahead (meaning that this is the carrot for the likes of the LibDems - if you want it, you can have it, but you need to say we will get behind whatever result)

For 2, I know they voted they would respect it AFTER the referendum result, but I don't believe they did it before?

Simplistic I know because the debate will rage about what questions to be put forward again. But everyone is on the same page, we can do it, get it over with and do what the outcome is. Totally wishful thinking!

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I won’t vote Labour cos the Lib Dems are the best Tory opposition in my area.

I also would struggle to vote for Corbyn.

See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

I humbly suggest everybody votes tactically that wants a more productive and respectable UK...Especially if you value having Healthcare free at the point of use..

Look after the NHS you won't hear it much but other Countries do envy it..

As for the dire polls..The red menace is a Conservative and she won't vote for Boris..

Just have to hope the polls aren't picking up other like minded Tories..

TwisT wrote:

Afro wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

It is a weird one. I guess driven by the need that any result to overturn the original would have to be fairly conclusive, otherwise it will just result in Leave voters rightly questioning why the 2nd vote carries more weight than the 1st, and calling for another one further down the line.

Exactly - on to round 3 then.

Fact is the result was always going to be close to 50-50. I doubt it would even be 60-40 in the current climate.

What percentage constitutes a "mandate"?

51%?

I think that if this is true it will make things even worse. Are they saying if it was 60-40 to Remain, then it wouldn't be enough? Seems like they are tying themselves in knots, so I think this isn't the case.

If a 2nd referendum goes ahead, two things need to happen:

1. Electorate understand that this is THE referendum and we are having the vote again because "they know more now then they did back then" (rightly or wrongly - not getting into that debate)
2. All parties vote BEFORE the referendum that the result will be carried out. This needs to be double locked down. If they choose not to vote yes to this, then a 2nd referedum will not go ahead (meaning that this is the carrot for the likes of the LibDems - if you want it, you can have it, but you need to say we will get behind whatever result)

For 2, I know they voted they would respect it AFTER the referendum result, but I don't believe they did it before?

Simplistic I know because the debate will rage about what questions to be put forward again. But everyone is on the same page, we can do it, get it over with and do what the outcome is. Totally wishful thinking!

I know this is taking things around and around in circles again but the reason Brexit hasn't happened so far is not because of the 'should we/ shouldn't we' question, it's been about agreeing a path for implementation. That has been impossible because there is no deal that is as remotely good as what we have now regardless of what they say, and as a consequence any deal will make things worse. We can vote to make our lives harder should we so wish, but then the politicians have to own it.

What I am trying to say is having another vote that says 'we must leave no matter what' doesn't actually solve anything.

Best and simplest statement I saw on the need for a 65% vote margin in the first place is that without it nobody will be able to build a consensus as to the how.

lostinwales wrote:

TwisT wrote:

Afro wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:See talk that Labour would want a referendum where Remain would have to win 65%+ of the vote to overturn the original decision. That’d be weird

It is a weird one. I guess driven by the need that any result to overturn the original would have to be fairly conclusive, otherwise it will just result in Leave voters rightly questioning why the 2nd vote carries more weight than the 1st, and calling for another one further down the line.

Exactly - on to round 3 then.

Fact is the result was always going to be close to 50-50. I doubt it would even be 60-40 in the current climate.

What percentage constitutes a "mandate"?

51%?

I think that if this is true it will make things even worse. Are they saying if it was 60-40 to Remain, then it wouldn't be enough? Seems like they are tying themselves in knots, so I think this isn't the case.

If a 2nd referendum goes ahead, two things need to happen:

1. Electorate understand that this is THE referendum and we are having the vote again because "they know more now then they did back then" (rightly or wrongly - not getting into that debate)
2. All parties vote BEFORE the referendum that the result will be carried out. This needs to be double locked down. If they choose not to vote yes to this, then a 2nd referedum will not go ahead (meaning that this is the carrot for the likes of the LibDems - if you want it, you can have it, but you need to say we will get behind whatever result)

For 2, I know they voted they would respect it AFTER the referendum result, but I don't believe they did it before?

Simplistic I know because the debate will rage about what questions to be put forward again. But everyone is on the same page, we can do it, get it over with and do what the outcome is. Totally wishful thinking!

I know this is taking things around and around in circles again but the reason Brexit hasn't happened so far is not because of the 'should we/ shouldn't we' question, it's been about agreeing a path for implementation. That has been impossible because there is no deal that is as remotely good as what we have now regardless of what they say, and as a consequence any deal will make things worse. We can vote to make our lives harder should we so wish, but then the politicians have to own it.

What I am trying to say is having another vote that says 'we must leave no matter what' doesn't actually solve anything.

Best and simplest statement I saw on the need for a 65% vote margin in the first place is that without it nobody will be able to build a consensus as to the how.

So in theory it should be no deal or no leave. The most extreme of either option and that's it.

You are right that the politicians have to own it, but they should be representing us. It doesn't help when you have MPs trying to do the opposite of what the constituents asked for. That is why people are tired of it and why I can't see myself voting. You can make the argument that you should be able to find ONE party that represents what you think and believe.

Maybe it is just because I am older and grumpier

As a side not (which adds to the grumpiness), I have never seen an election where the majority of questions answered by MPs doesn't actually answer the question. I know that is a MPs mantra but it seems to have got so much worse. I'd be more likely to vote for someone that had the guts to say "look this may not be what you want to hear but this is where I stand". At least you seem to be more informed that you are now

I know far too many politicians are just assholes. I truly wish they would be honest, because reality will catch up with all of us even if some of them manage to dodge it for longer.

But please do vote. It is the main way we have of influencing them, and if you don't you don't really have a reason to complain afterwards.

Yep that is what people are saying to me. I probably will, it is just venting off steam. But it says everything when something as important as choosing who is (supposedly) there to represent our wishes is met with such apathy.

Should it really be a case of voting on the person you dislike the least?

Sounds extreme but it would be easier if you had the mentality of the far right or a hippie. At least you know what flag to follow then.

TwisT wrote:
Maybe it is just because I am older and grumpier

I think I'm evidence that being older and grumpier doesn't stop you from voting

Afro wrote:

TwisT wrote:
Maybe it is just because I am older and grumpier

I think I'm evidence that being older and grumpier doesn't stop you from voting

True but you are wiser and that would be pushing it for me

When you can’t see light to vote based on nationals, see what your locals are like. They will have certain stances of their own. I remember meeting the lass who won in my constituency. Very rude and arrogant. I was vote counting that night and she was rude to me, as was another Tory (a member) who eventually left me cos I told her to f*** off.

I was a younger man, dumber and more headstrong

That is a good call actually. Sounds obvious now you say. At least I can say that I voted for someone who directly impacts my life. Got a couple of pot holes down my road that have needing sorted for weeks. See who is prepared to sort that

TwisT wrote:That is a good call actually. Sounds obvious now you say. At least I can say that I voted for someone who directly impacts my life. Got a couple of pot holes down my road that have needing sorted for weeks. See who is prepared to sort that

Problem is that for the next 21 days, they will all be prepared to sort them. The trick is finding the ones who will be prepared to sort it still on the 13th

Afro wrote:

TwisT wrote:That is a good call actually. Sounds obvious now you say. At least I can say that I voted for someone who directly impacts my life. Got a couple of pot holes down my road that have needing sorted for weeks. See who is prepared to sort that

Problem is that for the next 21 days, they will all be prepared to sort them. The trick is finding the ones who will be prepared to sort it still on the 13th

"I had that positive vibe aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there it goes".

Surely Boris would care on the 13th? His brilliant Brexit deal is hefty enough to block it up.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:When you can’t see light to vote based on nationals, see what your locals are like. They will have certain stances of their own. I remember meeting the lass who won in my constituency. Very rude and arrogant. I was vote counting that night and she was rude to me, as was another Tory (a member) who eventually left me cos I told her to f*** off.

I was a younger man, dumber and more headstrong

In my experience the Tory and Labour candidates round this way are in general horrible to talk to whereas the Lib Dems are far more amiable. The strange exception was actually Ann Widdecombe was always very easy to talk to, she seems to have become a caricature of her media personality now.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:When you can’t see light to vote based on nationals, see what your locals are like. They will have certain stances of their own. I remember meeting the lass who won in my constituency. Very rude and arrogant. I was vote counting that night and she was rude to me, as was another Tory (a member) who eventually left me cos I told her to f*** off.

I was a younger man, dumber and more headstrong

In my experience the Tory and Labour candidates round this way are in general horrible to talk to whereas the Lib Dems are far more amiable. The strange exception was actually Ann Widdecombe was always very easy to talk to, she seems to have become a caricature of her media personality now.

I'd agree with this. The Tory and Labour candidates seem to be shipped in (particularly the Tory ones as they safe seats all around us in which to get their preferred people into parliament). The Lib Dems and Greens seem to all be local people who are far more engaging to talk with

Tory vote was up everywhere last night winning two seats..

Labour struggled especially in Scotland and the Lib Dems are treading water..

Obviously turnout is low in these things but it does tend to show that one Party is more motivated..

Just repeating "Get Brexit done" like Jack Torrance in The Shining looks like it could be enough...

"Little pigs" are letting Claudius in..

Anything to keep Nero out...

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:When you can’t see light to vote based on nationals, see what your locals are like. They will have certain stances of their own. I remember meeting the lass who won in my constituency. Very rude and arrogant. I was vote counting that night and she was rude to me, as was another Tory (a member) who eventually left me cos I told her to f*** off.

I was a younger man, dumber and more headstrong

In my experience the Tory and Labour candidates round this way are in general horrible to talk to whereas the Lib Dems are far more amiable. The strange exception was actually Ann Widdecombe was always very easy to talk to, she seems to have become a caricature of her media personality now.

I'd agree with this. The Tory and Labour candidates seem to be shipped in (particularly the Tory ones as they safe seats all around us in which to get their preferred people into parliament). The Lib Dems and Greens seem to all be local people who are far more engaging to talk with

I may be naive, but aren't we supposed to be voting for our representatives i.e. MPs who represent those of us in their actual constituencies? When did it become about simply a National question? God, our system is FUBAR.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tory vote was up everywhere last night winning two seats..

Labour struggled especially in Scotland and the Lib Dems are treading water..

Obviously turnout is low in these things but it does tend to show that one Party is more motivated..

Just repeating "Get Brexit done" like Jack Torrance in The Shining looks like it could be enough...

"Little pigs" are letting Claudius in..

It may have escaped your notice, but an awful lot of people are royally ****ed off that they think their vote in the referendum is, or is likely to be, ignored. Getting out of the EU is their priority, even if they don't agree with all that Johnson says. Ships have sailed and positions are far too entrenched now. We need to live Brexit I'm afraid - if it's as scheisse as many suspect it might be (although, point of fact, we don't actually know), well, that's a learning opportunity if ever there was one, but we won't realise what we lost (and may want to therefore regain) unless we experience it. Sad, but true I'm afraid.

Same as all those rust belt etc voters and Trump in 2015 - sure they probably think he's a pr!ck, but he promised them jobs i.e. their priority above all else.

Soul Requiem wrote:Anything to keep Nero out...

Johnson is the British politician who most resembles Nero. Corbyn doesn't really compare against any of the Caesars but if forced to pick, then Claudius would be the only plausible pick.

Trump is a cross between Nero and Caligula and there's also definitely a bit of Tiberius about him.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:When you can’t see light to vote based on nationals, see what your locals are like. They will have certain stances of their own. I remember meeting the lass who won in my constituency. Very rude and arrogant. I was vote counting that night and she was rude to me, as was another Tory (a member) who eventually left me cos I told her to f*** off.

I was a younger man, dumber and more headstrong

In my experience the Tory and Labour candidates round this way are in general horrible to talk to whereas the Lib Dems are far more amiable. The strange exception was actually Ann Widdecombe was always very easy to talk to, she seems to have become a caricature of her media personality now.

I'd agree with this. The Tory and Labour candidates seem to be shipped in (particularly the Tory ones as they safe seats all around us in which to get their preferred people into parliament). The Lib Dems and Greens seem to all be local people who are far more engaging to talk with

I may be naive, but aren't we supposed to be voting for our representatives i.e. MPs who represent those of us in their actual constituencies? When did it become about simply a National question? God, our system is FUBAR.

Indeed. So where I live, I am close to the North Herefordshire, South Herefordshire, Forest of Dean and Monmouth constituencies.

All are Tory seats.
North Herefordshire has an Etonian from London, who originally went for the Burnley seat.
South Herefordshire has another Etonian from London.
Forest of Dean is not so bad. An Oxford graduate from Swindon which is at least close
Monmouth again not so bad. From London, moved to Newport (which is close). Tried to get in in Bridgend, so they moved him to Monmouth. Incidentally, he is vilest of Conservatives I have ever witnessed. If you get the chance to, look for YouTube videos of him (David TC Davies) on BBC parliament or BBC Wales. His complete contempt and lack of respect for other people is beyond belief.

Anyway, the point is none are local people from that constituency.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tory vote was up everywhere last night winning two seats..

Labour struggled especially in Scotland and the Lib Dems are treading water..

Obviously turnout is low in these things but it does tend to show that one Party is more motivated..

Just repeating "Get Brexit done" like Jack Torrance in The Shining looks like it could be enough...

"Little pigs" are letting Claudius in..

It may have escaped your notice, but an awful lot of people are royally ****ed off that they think their vote in the referendum is, or is likely to be, ignored. Getting out of the EU is their priority

This is true. The key is how many of those who voted for Brexit feel this way.

Question Time tonight - a chance for Corbyn and Johnson and Swinson and Sturgeon to...inspire the nation? Bore everyone senseless? Make a hilarious error?

Not really sure why the SNP are on a show based in Sheffield tonight, but there we are.

Duty281 wrote:Question Time tonight - a chance for Corbyn and Johnson and Swinson and Sturgeon to...inspire the nation? Bore everyone senseless? Make a hilarious error?

Not really sure why the SNP are on a show based in Sheffield tonight, but there we are.

Leader of the third biggest party in the UK. Why not ask why Swinson is there as she is leader of a party with less MPs than the SNP. Or maybe ask why it is being staged in Sheffield?

Only caught bits of Corbyn as I'm supposed to be working. But thought he was good, concise. And got his message across.

But really don't like this style. Would have been better off them all out, and ex time to answer the questions.

At the podium.

From the bits I've seen, Jo Swinson probably did better in the debate she wasn't in.
And Boris did really well at not answering any questions directly.

From the bits I've seen, Jo Swinson probably did better in the debate she wasn't in.
And Boris did really well at not answering any questions directly.

Yeah, I don't think Swinson did very well. Got a tough time from the audience and didn't look particularly good at handling it. Johnson was a bit better, though he's more used to that scenario.

Swinson has been an absolute train wreck. She's taken the Lib Dems from a great position before this election as a potentially genuinely appealing third choice party to some to now being even moreof a laughing stock than they were under Cable.

Nicola Sturgeon proving once again to be the most eloquent and switched on leader in the whole shebang.

Jo Swinson's big moment and I'm not sure she took it...Certainly the flavour of the Questions weren't overly helpful..

Lacks the projective quality and personality of Clegg..

Like Farron before her..

It is not rocket science though why the Lib Dems are plummeting in the polls. It is similar to the reasons why Tories and Labour have plummeted in Scotland.

Swinson and the Lib Dems are making a no compromise stance on Brexit and Scottish Independence saying Brexit would be revoked and there would be no IndyRef2 ever. Straight away that is alienating 17.4 million who voted for Brexit and well over a million who back independence in Scotland. Tories and Labour are the same in Scotland with a 'no IndyRef2 2' stance alienating themselves straight away with the Scottish electorate.