UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Nothing Has Changed said:

Very interesting proposal from Prof Karl Whelan on how the UK and EU could make the backstop work. I would prefer for Brexit to be called off but the proposal here is a well thought out way to make the current exit arrangements work.

Isn't that the proposal from December 2017, which no Primeminister could ever accept?

It's worth remembering May's three contradictory promises.

1. No hard border on the Irish Island.

2. Northern Ireland will not be treated differently than the rest of the UK.

3. The UK will have an [from the EU] independent Trade Policy.

You can realistically only ever keep two of those promises at the same time.

THe original backstop and Whelan's proposal discards promise number 2 and the DUP will be throwing a tantrum. Let's be rela, that would be the end of their cooperation with the Tories. This is never going to be acceptabl for them. And it'd take quite some political bravery, which is really not a trademark of May.

The Backstop in its current form discards promise 3 (and so does a real customs Union).

[Chaircat Meow]

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Isn't that the proposal from December 2017, which no Primeminister could ever accept?

It's worth remembering May's three contradictory promises.

1. No hard border on the Irish Island.

2. Northern Ireland will not be treated differently than the rest of the UK.

3. The UK will have an [from the EU] independent Trade Policy.

You can realistically only ever keep two of those promises at the same time.

THe original backstop and Whelan's proposal discards promise number 2 and the DUP will be throwing a tantrum. Let's be rela, that would be the end of their cooperation with the Tories. This is never going to be acceptabl for them. And it'd take quite some political bravery, which is really not a trademark of May.

The Backstop in its current form discards promise 3 (and so does a real customs Union).

No, it's not. 

[Werthead]

A brief pause whilst we digest the news that there's a self-declared anti-EU "Brexiter expert" whose name is literally MAX GAMMON.

[lacuna]

22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

A brief pause whilst we digest the news that there's a self-declared anti-EU "Brexiter expert" whose name is literally MAX GAMMON.

Will he be telling porky pies?

[Chaircat Meow]

This dude is my favourite gammon. 

[Chaircat Meow]

Opinium poll, for the Guardian

CON: 41% (+4)

LAB: 34% (-6)

LDEM: 8% (+1)

UKIP: 7% (-)

GRN: 4% (-)

 

30 Jan - 01 Feb

 

One solution to our problems would surely be a coup to unseat Jez and his band of far-left anti-Semitic trash and have a proper leader of the opposition. But I don't think Labour have the gumption.

[BigFatCoward]

Even Kinnock would have 50%+ now. It doesn't matter if it is all the press. He has to go. 

 

[Maltaran]

4 hours ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Opinium poll, for the Guardian

CON: 41% (+4)

LAB: 34% (-6)

LDEM: 8% (+1)

UKIP: 7% (-)

GRN: 4% (-)

 

30 Jan - 01 Feb

 

One solution to our problems would surely be a coup to unseat Jez and his band of far-left anti-Semitic trash and have a proper leader of the opposition. But I don't think Labour have the gumption.

Didn’t Owen Smith try that last year?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Also, maybe wait for other pollsters before jumping to conclusions?

(Put it this way. If you were angry at Corbyn for not backing Remain more strongly, why the hell would you swing to the Tories and not the Liberal Democrats?).

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Didn’t Owen Smith try that last year?

Timing is everything. Sometimes patience is a virtue. and so on and so forth.

Smith had a horrible timing imho, I said so two years ago (?), when they botched that leadership challenge. It must have been longer than a year, since that one came before the three line whip to trigger article 50.

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

(Put it this way. If you were angry at Corbyn for not backing Remain more strongly, why the hell would you swing to the Tories and not the Liberal Democrats?).

I assume it was more the general absence of any leadership from the opposition party that turned voters off. Labour has not offered a coherent Brexit policy themselves (as even the most inept PM May pointed out time and time again). My guess is, seeeing the poll, that May has somewhat managed to close ranks and bind Tory voters together for some reason, while Labour voters just got annoyed and went to no idea, not gonna vote or something.

3 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Also, maybe wait for other pollsters before jumping to conclusions?

Again, we can agree that this UK goverment is arguably the most shambolic one since WWII, and Corbyn has failed to build a sizeable lead in any poll during that time. So how long shall we wait for him to reveal his cunning plan that would put Baldrick to shame? Or how much more do you need to see, before admitting that Corbyn is a real problem for Labour?

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Again, we can agree that this UK goverment is arguably the most shambolic one since WWII, and Corbyn has failed to build a sizeable lead in any poll during that time. So how long shall we wait for him to reveal his cunning plan that would put Baldrick to shame? Or how much more do you need to see, before admitting that Corbyn is a real problem for Labour?

I'd suggest that we're seeing the Americanisation of British politics, in terms of polarisation and resentment between two blocs of roughly similar size - the days of landslide elections are over, for the foreseeable future. The peculiar nature of the current particular environment also dictates close polling (if Labour were 20 points in front, it'd magically be appealing to ardent Remainers and ardent Brexiters at the same time. Corbyn, correctly, wants current discourse to be about anything but Brexit because there is no way to please both lots of voters at the same time).

That said, does Corbyn represent a unique drag on Labour? Yes, I think he does - and not merely because of the (admittedly poorly handled) anti-semitism nonsense that keeps getting chucked at him. It's that the Tories (and the wider Establishment) correctly see him as someone who would - given the opportunity - wreck the Thatcherite consensus. A spell in Opposition where the Government is basically governing within the constraints of the status quo is rather different from a spell in Opposition where the Government is completely transforming the political landscape. I think that's a terrifying prospect to right-leaning voters, and one that keeps them aboard the HMS Theresa May. 

[A wilding]

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I'd suggest that we're seeing the Americanisation of British politics, in terms of polarisation and resentment between two blocs of roughly similar size - the days of landslide elections are over, for the foreseeable future.

I would say the opposite. A generation or so ago the main parties both had a solid hard core of support who would vote for them come what may. It feels now that there has been a increasing disillusionment all round and both only now have a shrunken and ossified core of supporters, with most of the people who still vote voting for the lesser evil. Hence the recent swings to the LibDems, and then to UKIP, and even initially to Corbyn's Labour.

 

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

That said, does Corbyn represent a unique drag on Labour? Yes, I think he does - and not merely because of the (admittedly poorly handled) anti-semitism nonsense that keeps getting chucked at him. It's that the Tories (and the wider Establishment) correctly see him as someone who would - given the opportunity - wreck the Thatcherite consensus. A spell in Opposition where the Government is basically governing within the constraints of the status quo is rather different from a spell in Opposition where the Government is completely transforming the political landscape. I think that's a terrifying prospect to right-leaning voters, and one that keeps them aboard the HMS Theresa May. 

I take your point about the potential issue of Corbyn worrying people in the centre. But I do think there is a wider issue with him of which the anti-semitism stuff is merely a symptom. He is perceived as someone with his head too much in the clouds of idealism to lead effectively. Hence firstly his perceived failure, even before Brexit, to land effective body blows on a Tory party that, as said already, has displayed extraordinary amounts of incompetence ever since 2015; and secondly his apparent failure to notice the behaviour and actions of some of the people who have attached themselves to him and are acting in his name. 

 

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Also, maybe wait for other pollsters before jumping to conclusions?

There was a simultaneous Survation poll showing Labour ahead by 1%. Of course, that's still a mediocre performance given how incompetent the current Government is, and probably wouldn't translate into Labour being the largest party after an election.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

It's that the Tories (and the wider Establishment) correctly see him as someone who would - given the opportunity - wreck the Thatcherite consensus.

 

5 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

A spell in Opposition where the Government is basically governing within the constraints of the status quo is rather different from a spell in Opposition where the Government is completely transforming the political landscape.

 

5 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

I think that's a terrifying prospect to right-leaning voters, and one that keeps them aboard the HMS Theresa May. 

 

Are we playing buzzword bingo? If so, I am pretty sure somebody has won now.

I mean you pretty much ticked all the boxes there. Establishment, Thatcherite consensus (I think there is a wide range of consensus she was awful). Status quo, completely transforming the political landscape.

Lots of pretty words with very little meaning. But they sound good, I grant you that.

[Jen'ari]

I'd say it comes down to Corbyn, his front bench and his policies are just even more unattractive to voters than Mays shambolic mess, which surely must tell Labour something, the fact they've not got a huge lead in the polls against such a terrible government means they need to ditch Corbyn.

[Werthead]

I'm trying to remember a previous occasion when Labour were behind in the polls and all the polls said they were going to be wiped out and Corbyn was going to die on his feet and the Tories would reign unopposed for a hundred years and then the actual results were completely opposite and Labour orchestrated the biggest vote swing in fifty years. Can't quite remember when that was... 

It's abundantly clear that British political polling has been near-continuously getting things catastrophically wrong since at least 2015 (when we were supposed to get another coalition, which is what got us in this mess in the first place as Cameron promised a referendum on the assumption he could just ignore it and blame the LibDems), so why people think magically they're right now is beyond me.

[The Marquis de Leech]

11 hours ago, williamjm said:

There was a simultaneous Survation poll showing Labour ahead by 1%. Of course, that's still a mediocre performance given how incompetent the current Government is, and probably wouldn't translate into Labour being the largest party after an election.

A 1% Labour lead would translate into a 1.7% swing to Labour from 2017.

On a uniform swing, that nets Labour 25 Tory seats, up to Putney (I'm ignoring the SNP/Labour and Plaid/Labour marginals - there are about ten of them in that range). That would have the Tories on 292 and Labour on 287 - so, yes, Labour wouldn't be the largest party unless it took a bite out of the SNP too. Labour would, however, be in Government on those numbers, which is really what matters, 

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Are we playing buzzword bingo? If so, I am pretty sure somebody has won now.

I mean you pretty much ticked all the boxes there. Establishment, Thatcherite consensus (I think there is a wide range of consensus she was awful). Status quo, completely transforming the political landscape.

Lots of pretty words with very little meaning. But they sound good, I grant you that.

You know very well what I mean, and it doesn't mean what people think of her. 

[mormont]

7 hours ago, Werthead said:

I'm trying to remember a previous occasion when Labour were behind in the polls and all the polls said they were going to be wiped out and Corbyn was going to die on his feet and the Tories would reign unopposed for a hundred years and then the actual results were completely opposite and Labour orchestrated the biggest vote swing in fifty years. Can't quite remember when that was... 

I think it was when Corbyn lost the last election despite a shambolic performance by the Tories?

Also, 'completely opposite' does not mean what you're suggesting here. 'Completely opposite' would have been a Labour victory. 

7 hours ago, Werthead said:

It's abundantly clear that British political polling has been near-continuously getting things catastrophically wrong since at least 2015

It isn't, but let's not get into that now. Instead, let's note that polling has never been so egregiously wrong as to explain why Labour is not currently six to eight points points ahead in most polling. You can debate the accuracy of the polls to a certain point, but they do undeniably show that Labour is not currently capturing the public's imagination as a government in waiting. 

7 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

A 1% Labour lead would translate into a 1.7% swing to Labour from 2017.

On a uniform swing, that nets Labour 25 Tory seats, up to Putney (I'm ignoring the SNP/Labour and Plaid/Labour marginals - there are about ten of them in that range). That would have the Tories on 292 and Labour on 287 - so, yes, Labour wouldn't be the largest party unless it took a bite out of the SNP too. Labour would, however, be in Government on those numbers, which is really what matters, 

Labour would be in government despite having fewer seats than the Tories? Are we assuming things about coalitions again? 

[Werthead]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

I think it was when Corbyn lost the last election despite a shambolic performance by the Tories?

Also, 'completely opposite' does not mean what you're suggesting here. 'Completely opposite' would have been a Labour victory. 

It isn't, but let's not get into that now. Instead, let's note that polling has never been so egregiously wrong as to explain why Labour is not currently six to eight points points ahead in most polling. You can debate the accuracy of the polls to a certain point, but they do undeniably show that Labour is not currently capturing the public's imagination as a government in waiting. 

Labour would be in government despite having fewer seats than the Tories? Are we assuming things about coalitions again? 

In order for Labour to win the 2017 election, it would have required a vote swing unprecedented in British political history. Instead, he pulled off the biggest swing since the Second World War (and rather more than Blair's landslide victory in 1997). Winning outright (especially without much chance of a coalition, given the SNP's performance as well) was mathematically highly dubious. To achieve what Labour did considering their starting position was remarkable and was completely against what the polling was suggesting. This comes after the 2016 referendum (which Remain was supposed to have won based on polling) and the 2015 election (which the Tories were supposed to have lost or gone into coalition, based on polling).

When you have three results in a row which show that the polling was way off base, there is clearly a flawed methodology going on in the polling. If this has been resolved then future polling can be trusted. As it stands, it should be taken with a significant grain of salt.

 

Quote

 

Labour would be in government despite having fewer seats than the Tories? Are we assuming things about coalitions again? 

 

I'm assuming so, since Labour could probably arrange some kind of alliance (if perhaps not a formal coalition) with the LibDems and Greens, which would overcome a continuation of the Tory/DUP alliance (especially if the DUP can contrive to lose a couple of seats as well). Labour's biggest problem remains the loss of its Scottish vote to the SNP.