Jump to content

UK Politics Unexpected Election edition


Maltaran

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Notone said:

So you still think I was way too unfair when lashing out a Corbyn's leadership skills as harshly as I did?

Yes, actually. What you said was still unfair and incorrect. Criticise the guy for things he actually does wrong.

55 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No one has mentioned the latest Panelbase poll from Scotland yet.

Scottish Westminster voting intention:

SNP: 44% (-3)

CON: 33% (+5)

LAB: 13% (-1)

LDEM: 5% (+1)

Changes from Jan 2017

Another poll from Scotland by Survation was not so favourable, but the Scottish Conservatives were still on 28%. With 33% of the vote we would be looking at taking 10-14 seats from the SNP, and maybe even taking out Angus Robertson, the SNP's leader in London.

edit: that Welsh poll is quite something.

You're making the assumption of a uniform swing, which under the circumstances is highly tempting but may be very wrong. If in fact that Conservative rise is down to other Unionist party voters switching for tactical reasons, for example, that may play out very differently in the constituencies than direct gains from SNP voters. Take Perthshire, for example: there just aren't enough Labour and Lib Dem voters to flip that constituency. If the gains are concentrated in constituencies where the Tories are way behind, it might not help them in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

You're making the assumption of a uniform swing, which under the circumstances is highly tempting but may be very wrong. If in fact that Conservative rise is down to other Unionist party voters switching for tactical reasons, for example, that may play out very differently in the constituencies than direct gains from SNP voters. Take Perthshire, for example: there just aren't enough Labour and Lib Dem voters to flip that constituency. If the gains are concentrated in constituencies where the Tories are way behind, it might not help them in the end.

I've also seen some speculation that the increase in Conservative polling in Scotland may be largely due to them getting support from the substantial minority who voted for Brexit. That might be another thing that would lead to a big variation between different seats, it might suggest they would have more opportunities in some rural seats rather than somewhere like Edinburgh that is enthusiastically pro-European.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes, actually. What you said was still unfair and incorrect. Criticise the guy for things he actually does wrong.

You're making the assumption of a uniform swing, which under the circumstances is highly tempting but may be very wrong. If in fact that Conservative rise is down to other Unionist party voters switching for tactical reasons, for example, that may play out very differently in the constituencies than direct gains from SNP voters. Take Perthshire, for example: there just aren't enough Labour and Lib Dem voters to flip that constituency. If the gains are concentrated in constituencies where the Tories are way behind, it might not help them in the end.

Yea, 8 seats was John Curtice's prediction based on an average of the survation and panelbase polls. 14 was the number I heard thrown around for panelbase alone. You're totally correct that even if these polls are right and there isn't a big change before the election (both big ifs) the Tories could have most of those votes in the wrong places and thus fall well short of those forecasts.

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lessthanluke said:

Utterly baffling.

Its not really baffling when you realise we have the least amount of opposition to the Tories in almost forever. Without a viable alternative and with the Tories somewhat appealling to an increasingly disgruntled working class its easy to see why they are doing so well.. even in Wales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mormont said:

Yes, actually. What you said was still unfair and incorrect. Criticise the guy for things he actually does wrong.

So you think, Corbyn actually tries to be the Labour Leader, and simply lacks the skill set? I have to ask, since you took particular offense, when I said/wrote, that he doesn't put in an effort to lead his party. I mean he can't be that inept, he simply doesn't really seem to care what is best for his party in an election and act accordingly.

On  a seperate note, I have to ask, are British politicians tripping acid, or is the London water spiked? I know the Tories are still talking about reaping the benefits of the single market access, without all those annoying responsibilities (freedom of movement, significant contributions to the EU budget). But Labour's Starmer seems to be on the same stuff.

I mean.the first one sounds an awfully lot like BoJo in the Sky with Diamonds, just with smarter words.

Quote

Starmer's Q&A

Starmer is now taking questions.

Q: Would you be willing to keep freedom of movement, or to give up the right to make trade deals, to retain single market access?

Starmer says he has been clear that freedom of movement will end. Immigration rules will have to change, he says.

But he says it is important to have options on the table, not to take them off the table.

Labour would leave the option of staying in the customs union on the table.

But it would not accept unreformed membership of the single market.

Q: So you could give up the right to make trade deals around the world (a consequence of staying in the customs union)?

Starmer says it is important to keep options on the table.

Quote

Q: Could the UK stay in the EEA?

Starmer says this would be incompatible with giving up freedom of movement.

But he says he would like the UK to be part of the discussions about how the single market changes.

  • Starmer rules out Labour trying to keep UK in the European Economic Area (ie, the so-called ‘Norway option’).

With the second one he takes the cake though. So the UK leaves the single market, but it wants a word in the discussions concerning eventual changes. Not sure how to put it, but if you leave the club, you have no voting right in the club. The old have our cake and eat it theme.That positions do not seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Well, at least not if meant as something more than political christmas wish.

Source.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/apr/25/general-election-2017-labour-pledge-to-wipe-brexit-slate-clean-politics-live?page=with:block-58ff1961e4b09033f808ccd2#liveblog-navigation

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Notone said:

So you think, Corbyn actually tries to be the Labour Leader, and simply lacks the skill set? I have to ask, since you took particular offense, when I said/wrote, that he doesn't put in an effort to lead his party.

I don't think I took 'particular' offence to that but it is somewhat difficult to claim that Corbyn simply isn't trying. Have you some evidence to suggest a lack of effort on his part? 'He can't be that inept' is a singularly bad argument, because clearly he can, and 'he simply doesn't really seem to care what is best for his party' is an entirely different argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I don't think I took 'particular' offence to that but it is somewhat difficult to claim that Corbyn simply isn't trying. Have you some evidence to suggest a lack of effort on his part? 'He can't be that inept' is a singularly bad argument, because clearly he can, and 'he simply doesn't really seem to care what is best for his party' is an entirely different argument.

I think it's more attribution of of causation. I attribute his failure to lead to lack of motivation, rather than lack of ability. Means he could potentially do a better job (if he wanted to). I am not sure how you can seperate doesn't (seem to) care what is best for his party seperate from the skills needed to lead the party. Well, at least to not lead it off the cliff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Notone said:

I think it's more attribution of of causation. I attribute his failure to lead to lack of motivation, rather than lack of ability.

Which fails the 'on the face of things' test. Why would a man who's stood, twice, to be leader, who remains despite considerable opposition to his leadership, who shows every sign of being aware that his leadership is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the wing of the party that he represents, not be that bothered about leading?

Corbyn is making efforts. He just doesn't really know what he's doing. He has no previous front-bench experience, and no advisers with any either. Couple that with a conviction that he can do things differently and that the way previous leaders, well, led was morally suspect, and you wind up with the amateurish muddle that is the current Labour party leadership. Laziness does not get you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Notone said:

So you think, Corbyn actually tries to be the Labour Leader, and simply lacks the skill set? I have to ask, since you took particular offense, when I said/wrote, that he doesn't put in an effort to lead his party. I mean he can't be that inept, he simply doesn't really seem to care what is best for his party in an election and act accordingly.

On  a seperate note, I have to ask, are British politicians tripping acid, or is the London water spiked? I know the Tories are still talking about reaping the benefits of the single market access, without all those annoying responsibilities (freedom of movement, significant contributions to the EU budget). But Labour's Starmer seems to be on the same stuff.

I mean.the first one sounds an awfully lot like BoJo in the Sky with Diamonds, just with smarter words.

With the second one he takes the cake though. So the UK leaves the single market, but it wants a word in the discussions concerning eventual changes. Not sure how to put it, but if you leave the club, you have no voting right in the club. The old have our cake and eat it theme.That positions do not seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Well, at least not if meant as something more than political christmas wish.

Source.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/apr/25/general-election-2017-labour-pledge-to-wipe-brexit-slate-clean-politics-live?page=with:block-58ff1961e4b09033f808ccd2#liveblog-navigation

 

 

No they are not tripping acid.   It the Bus and we can fund the NHS thing again.

They know full well we can't have all these wonderful benefits of being in the EU while also being out of it, but if they admit that right now then people may think before voting for them.

 

They also know that the next election will be in about 5 years time  and a few years after Brexit when things should of stabilized into the new normal, and it being a few years after Brexit instead of just after means they are less likely to be judged on the mess they created and instead blame it on those nasty Europeans who just wanted to punish up for leaving.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Which fails the 'on the face of things' test. Why would a man who's stood, twice, to be leader, who remains despite considerable opposition to his leadership, who shows every sign of being aware that his leadership is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the wing of the party that he represents, not be that bothered about leading?

Corbyn is making efforts. He just doesn't really know what he's doing. He has no previous front-bench experience, and no advisers with any either. Couple that with a conviction that he can do things differently and that the way previous leaders, well, led was morally suspect, and you wind up with the amateurish muddle that is the current Labour party leadership. Laziness does not get you that.

You are equating lack of motivation to do something with laziness? Yes, it might be laziness, which looks unlikely in Corbyn's case. Him lacking the motivation to do something, might also be down to something else. Be it that he considers Realpolitik or party politics beneath him or unclean (compromising on his positions), or that he prefers to be some sort of martyr for his followers supporters to uniting and leading the party. E.g. he must know, that talking about NATO and Nuclear disarmement right now during an actual election campaign is not going to help Labour as a whole. There's just no way, that he or the people around do not realize that going opening that can of worms, now that party unity is required is simply not good idea. But he isn't really bothered with leading anywhere near No 10 or unite the party behind him. So where do you see evidence that he is interested in leading a united Labour party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Notone said:

You are equating lack of motivation to do something with laziness?

This may be a language issue but what else do you mean by it? I'm struggling to see how you get to 'lack of motivation' here. You're saying that Corbyn isn't interested in party unity: but clearly, he is. He calls for it all the time.

I think what you're trying to say is that he refuses to make the sacrifices that are required of a party leader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

This may be a language issue but what else do you mean by it? I'm struggling to see how you get to 'lack of motivation' here. You're saying that Corbyn isn't interested in party unity: but clearly, he is. He calls for it all the time.

I think what you're trying to say is that he refuses to make the sacrifices that are required of a party leader?

Basically, yes

And yes, he cries for party unity, but he is not really doing anything to achieve that. Instead he is either opposing agreed party position in public, if it so happens he even throws a fellow MP under the bus, by contradicting what they said a bit earlier. So I am really not seeing him really contributing to party unity. Watching that whole mess from a distance, you sometimes get the feeling he doesn't understand, that he is not running for POTUK, because that position doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Notone said:

Basically, yes

And yes, he cries for party unity, but he is not really doing anything to achieve that. Instead he is either opposing agreed party position in public, if it so happens he even throws a fellow MP under the bus, by contradicting what they said a bit earlier. So I am really not seeing him really contributing to party unity. Watching that whole mess from a distance, you sometimes get the feeling he doesn't understand, that he is not running for POTUK, because that position doesn't exist.

It's not that. It's that he has been a backbencher all his career until now, and has the reflexes and habits of a backbencher, who can speak his conscience in preference to party policy. He hasn't ever accepted that as party leader, different rules apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mormont said:

It's not that. It's that he has been a backbencher all his career until now, and has the reflexes and habits of a backbencher, who can speak his conscience in preference to party policy. He hasn't ever accepted that as party leader, different rules apply.

Yet, we are again at the point of me saying, that Corbyn is not willing to be the leader in anything other than name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Notone said:

Yet, we are again at the point of me saying, that Corbyn is not willing to be the leader in anything other than name.

There's a difference between not trying / not being willing and just not being very good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...