UK Politics Unexpected Election edition

[Slick Mongoose]

In a stirring act of self-sacrifice, Tim Farron just attacked muesli-eating Guardian readers.

[Slick Mongoose]

Letting all the minor parties in doesn't work. Call me elitist but for me, to qualify for the debates, a party should a ) run candidates nationally and b ) have at least 1 MP.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

How bad would May have to be to make it worthwhile looking this weak? Surely literally shiting yourself is only marginally worse than appearing to figuratively shit yourself. 

Not to mention that May was using someone (Rudd) who had just lost their father on Monday to do a job she herself could not be bothered doing.

 

[williamjm]

I walked past lots of police lining the streets of Cambridge today, I hadn't realised before that the debate was going to be here (of course, it was much lower profile before Corbyn's surprise appearance).

6 hours ago, Fez said:

It seems unlikely this election, but it does seem possible that in the future Labour could have a plurality. If/when that does happen, since apparently minority governments are allowed, would they even need to reach an agreement with the SNP? Would SNP really vote no confidence and cause a Conservative government to likely form?

I'm not sure what the actual Parliamentary rules are but if Labour were the largest party (which seems very unlikely at the moment) then it might be enough for the SNP and other smaller parties to abstain. There was a vaguely similar situation in the Scottish Parliament with the first SNP government where they only had a single MSP more than Labour and ran a minority administration for four years because nobody else would go into coalition with them although they did short term deals with the Tories and Lib Dems to pass their budgets where they included some opposition policies. Of course, it's a fragile situation, the other parties could have forced an election at any time, probably the only reason the SNP lasted for four years that time was because the other parties were (rightly) afraid that they'd lost votes in the next election.

I find Corbyn's attitude to Scotland peculiar, in that he doesn't seem to care much about it one way or the other, despite the fact that (as RBPL rightly points out) it's key to his chances of ever forming a government as Labour leader. I can't recall Corbyn ever saying anything about the union or the SNP that had any real passion behind it.

I get the feeling Corbyn has spent more time in his political career thinking about Palestine than thinking about Scotland.

Well, it's kinda difficult to come up with a pro-Union position, that is consistent with his position on Ireland and the IRA (freedom fighters). I mean you can't agree on Ireland being in the right fighting for their independence, while insisting that Scotland should not have the right to choose its own path. So Scottish independence is a Scottish issue, and not something for a Londoner to mess with.

It's probably easier for Corbyn to support people fighting against the political establishment in a region when the political establishment hasn't traditionally been Corbyn's own party.

[The Anti-Targ]

16 hours ago, mormont said:

I've said before that May seems out of her depth as PM, but there we are. I suspect Corbyn would be as well, and for the record Farron would be too. We're unfortunate that at a time when we need skilled leadership most, we haven't got many options. And I suspect this is part of the story for why the polls are so weird. Support is soft because people are unimpressed by the party leaders.

But the Tories seem to be hoovering up UKIP votes like nobody's business, and Tory voters are better at coming out, so I still expect them to win easily.

The thing is, when everyone was convinced the Tories would win easily, that would have a significant depressing effect on Labour voters. Why bother voting of the result is foregone? But now, with pundits saying a Labour win, or at least a failure of the Tories to get a majority, is a non-negligible possibility the soft Labour vote is more likely to turn out, because their vote might actually be worth something.

Is Labour actually campaigning hard in seats it sees as competitive? I would think at this point Labour would need to target the top 40 most contestable Tory seats and really work on getting out the Labour vote there. And also look at the top 20 most contestable Labour seats and make sure the Labour vote turns up.

[The Marquis de Leech]

10 hours ago, williamjm said:

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is Labour actually campaigning hard in seats it sees as competitive? I would think at this point Labour would need to target the top 40 most contestable Tory seats and really work on getting out the Labour vote there. And also look at the top 20 most contestable Labour seats and make sure the Labour vote turns up.

From what I understand, local Labourites went into the campaign seeing it as a salvage operation, so they placed their emphasis on defending seats. What they do now is anyone's guess.

(One case where they are still apparently playing defence on a reasonably large majority is Leeds North East. It's a 7000 Labour majority, but has plenty of Jewish voters, and Labour is doing terribly with that demographic these days).

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

The Irish question is a totally different issue to the Anglo-Scottish union even if you do have Corbyn's IRA sympathies. Maybe Corbyn does think like you do, and that's why he never has anything to say about Scottish Independence, but we don't really know that.

 

I'm surprised anyone is even thinking about bringing up this line now that we know the Conservative Party is happy to have actual ex-members of the IRA as their elected representatives.

15 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The thing is, when everyone was convinced the Tories would win easily, that would have a significant depressing effect on Labour voters. Why bother voting of the result is foregone? But now, with pundits saying a Labour win, or at least a failure of the Tories to get a majority, is a non-negligible possibility the soft Labour vote is more likely to turn out, because their vote might actually be worth something.

Is Labour actually campaigning hard in seats it sees as competitive? I would think at this point Labour would need to target the top 40 most contestable Tory seats and really work on getting out the Labour vote there. And also look at the top 20 most contestable Labour seats and make sure the Labour vote turns up.

The local Labour Party has turned up the heat in Colchester quite considerably in just the last fortnight. They are far more visible than they were in either 2010 or 2015. Definitely the whiff of change is in the air. Unfortunately, it may be too little, too late. They have to overturn an 11,000-seat majority. Even hoovering up young and working class Brexit and UKIP voters (who are otherwise unlikely to vote Tory) is going to be a struggle versus the Tories hoovering up other UKIP voters (Colchester voted Leave by a 7,000 majority).

But if Labour even have a chance, they do need to win quite a few seats with majorities in this ballpark. It's going to be tough.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 hours ago, williamjm said:

It's probably easier for Corbyn to support people fighting against the political establishment in a region when the political establishment hasn't traditionally been Corbyn's own party.

Well, that's an actual policy argument.

And I think it's actually the best thing Labour can do atm. What position should they take, that isn't already occupied? Blessed be the Union and God Save the Queen is somewhat of a Torie voter thing. They can't beat the SNP on the other side of the issue; after all Labour is a British Party, the SNP is a local party that represents (or claims to represent) the interests of Scotland, so they don't have to bother how their positions affect London (or the other parts of England). Unless the SNP collapses I don't think Labour can reasonably hope to regain Westminster seats up there.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Even hoovering up young and working class Brexit and UKIP voters (who are otherwise unlikely to vote Tory) is going to be a struggle versus the Tories hoovering up other UKIP voters (Colchester voted Leave by a 7,000 majority).

I see this myth persists.

Brexit/UKIP voters are very much more likely to vote Tory than Labour regardless of class. The figures suggest over half of 2015 UKIP supporters are defecting to the Tories, with UKIP to Labour defectors in a tiny minority, around 10%.

Working class UKIP voters in 2015 largely either never voted Labour at all, or first defected from Labour to the Conservatives before subsequently defecting to UKIP. Direct defection to UKIP from Labour was and is rare, and direct defection back the other way is also rare. Anyone hanging their hat on that hope is doomed.

[Werthead]

Oddly, I just had the Labour party electioneering team show up on my doorstep. No sign of either the Tories or the LibDems, although the local LibDem office is at the end of my road.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Soylent Brown said:

Eddie Izzard was out supporting the Labour candidate out my way yesterday, so it seems they're certainly trying. The Conservatives won by only a narrow margin here last time round, so fingers crossed!

Rolling out celebrities, I think, is a flawed strategy. I certainly know that no celebrity will every influence my ideological position. But then, all the celebrities I respect outside of the talent that earned them their celebrity all have ideological positions reasonably related to mine. With only one significant difference: many are atheists whereas I am not.

[The Marquis de Leech]

If May gets, say, a 4 seat majority, based off Tory gains in Scotland, and if those gains reflect anti-SNP tactical voting by Scottish Labourites, I wonder how English Labour is going to react.

[The BlackBear]

I saw the local labour candidate doing one of those 'talking to folks outside supermarkets things' outside of a Waitrose (welcome to Morningside,) I was in a hurry but if not would have stopped to get his opinion on Brexit Corbyn etc. He's going mainly for an anti SNP thing in the leaflets, He'd frankly have to seriously fuck up to change my vote plan away from him, but still would have been nice to get some more info.

Also had a conversation I didn't take too far with a work colleague, he's of the opinion voting is stupid because it'll never change anything, and that by completely cutting himself from the system he's showing the 'Man' what he thinks of them. I tried to persuade him spoiling his ballot was worthwhile but it wasn't going anywhere, so I decided to keep him as an amiable acquaintance and dropped it. Bear in mind he is a very aggressively vocal 9/11 Truther.

[Isis]

Urgh. The voting won't change anything people - on BBC 6 o clock news last night, they went to talk to people in St Albans and this guy said something super bland like 'oh Brexit blah blah blah I just hope something good happens for us'. What the hell does that even mean? He just hopes everything will magically turn out the way he would like it to? Just by hoping? Fuck passive people.

[Chaircat Meow]

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

I'm surprised anyone is even thinking about bringing up this line now that we know the Conservative Party is happy to have actual ex-members of the IRA as their elected representatives.

I wish I was surprised that a seemingly intelligent Labour supporter thinks this is a sensible response, but sadly I am not.

We all know Corbyn, Mcdonnell and Abbott hoped for a settlement on IRA terms and supported their methods.  

[mormont]

Alternative take: I don't give a fuck about who used to think what about the IRA. It's a dead issue. Dredging that shit up is a sign of how absolutely barren of ideas the Tory campaign has been.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I wish I was surprised that a seemingly intelligent Labour supporter thinks this is a sensible response, but sadly I am not.

It is a valid response to point out the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the Conservative position. And I note that the Conservatives have not yet produced of any kind of explanation why it's okay to actually financially support and pay a card-carrying member of the IRA who engaged in procuring weapons for terrorist use against British citizens (and then later a wrote a book to make money out of the exercise before changing their name to try to hide their past), whilst it was bad to support a negotiated peace with the IRA which the Conservatives ended up doing ten years later anyway. It's not just moral hypocrisy at work here, but profound intellectual dishonesty as well.

It would have been better for the Conservatives to have stuck to a manifesto-based engagement of ideas on issues like the economy, NHS, Brexit, policing and education, but to be fair they know these are areas they are weak in.

Still, I'm not sure why I expected better from a governing party actively engaged in the sale of arms to the Saudi regime to carry out the mass murder of children and civilians and lacks the backbone to condemn Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Quote

 

Alternative take: I don't give a fuck about who used to think what about the IRA. It's a dead issue. Dredging that shit up is a sign of how absolutely barren of ideas the Tory campaign has been.

 

Agreed. The Conservatives are lucky that this campaign ends next week. Another month of this farcical collapse and Labour, even as a three-legged dog and weighed down with issues any half-intelligent Tory should have made much more hay of, would be romping towards a victory. The Tories better take the majority they win next week and make the most of it, and in five years time we can assess the ruins and see what can be rebuilt.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Latest poll from Ipsos Mori has the gap closing by 10 to a mere 45-40. It really is amazing how suddenly two party politics has returned to Britain - this would be the highest combined total of the Big Two since 1970.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

It is a valid response to point out the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the Conservative position. And I note that the Conservatives have not yet produced of any kind of explanation why it's okay to actually financially support and pay a card-carrying member of the IRA who engaged in procuring weapons for terrorist use against British citizens (and then later a wrote a book to make money out of the exercise before changing their name to try to hide their past), whilst it was bad to support a negotiated peace with the IRA which the Conservatives ended up doing ten years later anyway. It's not just moral hypocrisy at work here, but profound intellectual dishonesty as well.

It would have been better for the Conservatives to have stuck to a manifesto-based engagement of ideas on issues like the economy, NHS, Brexit, policing and education, but to be fair they know these are areas they are weak in.

Still, I'm not sure why I expected better from a governing party actively engaged in the sale of arms to the Saudi regime to carry out the mass murder of children and civilians and lacks the backbone to condemn Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Agreed. The Conservatives are lucky that this campaign ends next week. Another month of this farcical collapse and Labour, even as a three-legged dog and weighed down with issues any half-intelligent Tory should have made much more hay of, would be romping towards a victory. The Tories better take the majority they win next week and make the most of it, and in five years time we can assess the ruins and see what can be rebuilt.

No it isn't. You know perfectly well what the difference is here. If you have no issues turning your country over to politicians who supported its enemies then so be it, but for right thinking people Corbyn and co's terrorist sympathies are a total disqualification for high office.