General Election 2019

[Gladders]

Didn't watch it but consensus seems to be it was pretty even slightly favouring Corbyn.

Which is not great for Corbyn as someone else mentioned above, as he had everything to gain and nothing to lose and the opposite for Johnson, so the fact he hasn't really gained anything is a bad thing for Labour.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Didn't watch it but consensus seems to be it was pretty even slightly favouring Corbyn.

Which is not great for Corbyn as someone else mentioned above, as he had everything to gain and nothing to lose and the opposite for Johnson, so the fact he hasn't really gained anything is a bad thing for Labour.

I dunno, looked at the other way, given how low Corbyn's personal ratings have been the fact he could come out even or slightly ahead maybe means progress.
Hard to judge for me as how anyone can give that twat Johnson the steam off their piss is beyond me.

 

[Soup Ladle]

Corbyn is in a tight spot over Brexit for sure. He’s obviously not a massive fan of the EU but I believe he’d like us to be in EFTA or the customs union. He’s trying to take the middle ground and to be honest that’s probably the right thing to do even though it leaves him open to pelters. Labour has quite a diverse support base, it’s mainly remain but there is a decent leave element to keep onside as well. The second referendum with a deal giving us more alignment to the EU than Johnson’s hard Brexit/no deal is a compromise and probably hits the middle ground if you take UK voters as a whole. Whether the EU would renegotiate again is another matter but in principle he’s not far off. Corbyn beats BoJo hands down on most policy but the hysteria whipped up from the right over his taxation/nationalisation ideas is stopping him making much headway into non Labour voters. The best he can hope for is a hung parliament really.

 

[GodsGift]

I thought Boris just about edged it although neither came across particularly well. Corbyn actually seemed a little disinterested, as if he was about to switch off at any moment, during the Brexit talk in the first half, only to wake up and improve in the second half with his answers on the NHS and the monarchy/Prince Andrew. Boris was his usual self but somehow avoided a major cock-up, other than his response to the Royal Family question which was plain ridiculous. The biggest own goal for the Tories was their press office changing the name of its official Twitter account to 'Fact check UK'.

Has it changed my mind? No, I still won't be voting for either of them.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Corbyn is in a tight spot over Brexit for sure. He’s obviously not a massive fan of the EU but I believe he’d like us to be in EFTA or the customs union. He’s trying to take the middle ground and to be honest that’s probably the right thing to do even though it leaves him open to pelters. Labour has quite a diverse support base, it’s mainly remain but there is a decent leave element to keep onside as well. The second referendum with a deal giving us more alignment to the EU than Johnson’s hard Brexit/no deal is a compromise and probably hits the middle ground if you take UK voters as a whole. Whether the EU would renegotiate again is another matter but in principle he’s not far off.

I don't think that's even remotely close to being true. Any deal that Corbyn negotiates would have us subject to EU legislation without having any kind of control over it. He also seems to want freedom of movement or something close to it. It would remove almost all of the benefits of leaving, even the ones Remainers would concede, whilst exacerbating most of the problems associated with staying. It would be a deal so bad that Remainers would vote Remain, and Leavers wouldn't vote at all. It's so blatant and transparent that he's quite rightly received little more than ridicule from all quarters over it.

Corbyn beats BoJo hands down on most policy [...]

I don't know that that opinion truly it reflects the mood of the public. He's more trusted when it comes to the NHS and privatisation, but I don't know how keen most people are about him nationalising everything in sight or hamstringing the military. And that's before you get into unwelcome associations with terrorist organizations. He has a distinctly anti-British vibe about him in my opinion that doesn't go down well with the generations with the highest voting turnouts.

 

[Gassy]

I haven't seen it yet, but from what I'm hearing on news/radio is that it was pretty equal - both polls suggest that Tories think Boris won & Labour voters think Corbyn won, however out of the middle ground Corbyn won as coming across better (although that doesn't mean he won).

Boris overall is and would be a complete embarrassment. Look at the disgrace of that party in general ffs. They misled the queen, acted unlawfully, last night misled the public by changing their twitter as 'factcheckerUK', created a fake video of labour shadow cabinet member 'struggling to answer a question on ITV (when they answered the question without a problem), Boris' constant lies and also his incorrect 'facts'/'statistics' that he blurs out.

I do agree with a summary I heard earlier: 'If Blair or Cameron were in that debate last night, they'd have wiped the floor with both of them'

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I feel like you need to diversify your news sources Gassy if you think that only one of these candidates/parties has a penchant for lies. That you believe even now - as a matter of fact - that Boris mislead the Queen, is perhaps testament to that.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1196762976109449217

 

[Gassy]

I feel like you need to diversify your news sources Gassy if you think that only one of these candidates/parties has a penchant for lies. That you believe even now - as a matter of fact - that Boris mislead the Queen, is perhaps testament to that.

So the judge's ruling was

"It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."

So what diid Boris do? If he didn't mislead her - he lied? Is that easier for you to swallow? I personally thought misled was a nicer way to put it - but I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts? I get most of my news from the BBC, the Tory run news outlet - would you be happier if I read the sun?

"But the Court of Session judges were unanimous in finding that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament." - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855

But lets say even in some universe he didn't mislead the queen, he only acted unlawfully in his advice (because that makes sense ) it hardly justifies all the other shit he comes out with. I heard him on 5Live the other day when they asked him about immigration to the UK between EU and non-EU - he said "it's about 50/50" between the two. It was proven not long after that actually non-EU immigration is 4x higher than EU - and that is something we do control. Considering that this was pretty much the main voting point of Brexit originally, it just shows how out of touch he is, he doesn't even know who/how many people are coming into the UK and his party has been in power for 9 years, yet he still has the cheek to say "let's take back control of our boarders" - honestly, it's absolutely pathetic.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So the judge's ruling was

"It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful."

So what diid Boris do? If he didn't mislead her - he lied? Is that easier for you to swallow? I personally thought misled was a nicer way to put it - but I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts? I get most of my news from the BBC, the Tory run news outlet - would you be happier if I read the sun?

"But the Court of Session judges were unanimous in finding that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament." - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49661855

But lets say even in some universe he didn't mislead the queen, he only acted unlawfully in his advice (because that makes sense ) it hardly justifies all the other shit he comes out with.

The prorogation of parliament is not some monumental endeavour that requires an essay to justify it to the monarch. It's something that normally happens every year as a matter of routine. The Queen's involvement is largely ceremonial, she is "advised" by the privy council just like she's "advised" of what to say in her speech to open parliament or who should receive honours. The PM doesn't need to convince her of anything, and even if he did, what exactly is it that you imagine he deceived her about? You think she's dense? She's been in this game longer than you or I have been walking the Earth. Short of some sort of absolutely mental request, she was never going to refuse prorogation. That's just not how the monarchy works. I doubt there is a single example, especially in the modern era, of the monarch denying prorogation. He wouldn't have needed to "mislead" anyone.

I heard him on 5Live the other day when they asked him about immigration to the UK between EU and non-EU - he said "it's about 50/50" between the two. It was proven not long after that actually non-EU immigration is 4x higher than EU - and that is something we do control. Considering that this was pretty much the main voting point of Brexit originally, it just shows how out of touch he is, he doesn't even know who/how many people are coming into the UK and his party has been in power for 9 years, yet he still has the cheek to say "let's take back control of our boarders" - honestly, it's absolutely pathetic.

Actually, though it does fluctuate, overall EU and non-EU immigration has been comparable over the last decade or so. It's the net migration figures where you see the disparity, because Britons are much more likely to emigrate to EU countries than non-EU countries. In 2010, 2014 and 2015 for example, EU immigration was higher than non-EU immigration.

 

[Gassy]

The prorogation of parliament is not some monumental endeavour that requires an essay to justify it to the monarch. It's something that normally happens every year as a matter of routine. The Queen's involvement is largely ceremonial, she is "advised" by the privy council just like she's "advised" of what to say in her speech to open parliament or who should receive honours. The PM doesn't need to convince her of anything, and even if he did, what exactly is it that you imagine he deceived her about? You think she's dense? She's been in this game longer than you or I have been walking the Earth. Short of some sort of absolutely mental request, she was never going to refuse prorogation. That's just not how the monarchy works. I doubt there is a single example, especially in the modern era, of the monarch denying prorogation. He wouldn't have needed to "mislead" anyone.



Actually, though it does fluctuate, overall EU and non-EU immigration has been comparable over the last decade or so. It's the net migration figures where you see the disparity, because Britons are much more likely to emigrate to EU countries than non-EU countries. In 2010, 2014 and 2015 for example, EU immigration was higher than non-EU immigration.

I understand what you're saying but still, the net immigration of non-EU is 4x higher than of EU. People voted and still say Boris' line of "let's take back control of our borders" - which is a joke on 2 main points:
1. (As I've mentioned before on another thread) EU law dictates that you can implement procedures (which I had to go through in Slovakia) of registration to live in that country. As an EU citizen you can stay for 6 months without registering, after that point you have to be registered or you get deported. To register, you must to to the "foreign police" with passport, photo, birth certificate (translated), work contract & apartment contract. If you don't have any of these things, you're out. If you change jobs or move apartments - you have to notify them. You can only be unemployed for 6 months if you lose your job.
2. We let in just as many non-EU citizens and as above, the net immigration is 4x higher of non-EU.

We have control of our borders, the Tories don't implement that control - but then base a campaign of "take back control".

Regarding your point on the Queen, let me get this straight - so even though he has to ask the queen to prorogue parliament and its most likely she would say yes, he couldn't have then misled her in the unlawful act he did, because when he told her unlawful reasoning of proroguing parliament it was fair game. So essentially, you can never mislead the queen? That's clutching at straws at the very least. You're also missing the point that the prorogation wasn't the issue, it was the fact that he wanted it to 5 weeks. Or are you going to say that's actually normal as well, we did it in the 1930's, so it's only about time we did it again..

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's certainly true that the Tories have been terrible on immigration and cannot be trusted to lower it, but that's probably true of every party excluding the Brexit Party. That they haven't controlled immigration as many would like doesn't change the fact that you have much stronger controls out of the EU than inside it. Once we're out of the EU then the Tories will have one fewer excuse to hide behind.

Regarding your point on the Queen, let me get this straight - so even though he has to ask the queen to prorogue parliament and its most likely she would say yes, he couldn't have then misled her in the unlawful act he did, because when he told her unlawful reasoning of proroguing parliament it was fair game. So essentially, you can never mislead the queen? That's clutching at straws at the very least. You're also missing the point that the prorogation wasn't the issue, it was the fact that he wanted it to 5 weeks. Or are you going to say that's actually normal as well, we did it in the 1930's, so it's only about time we did it again..

John Major did the same thing to tactically avoid parliament reading an unwelcome report. The only abnormal part of what happened in this case is not that Boris used prorogation strategically, but that Remainers somehow managed to convince the Supreme Court to wade into political matters this way, which is actually quite a dangerous precedent and probably something we should be talking about more. The act was only "unlawful" because 11 judges, populated by some known Remainers, decided it so after the fact. The courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland by contrast dismissed the challenge to prorogation as having no legal basis. We must respect the Supreme Court of course, but at the same time it was hardly cut and dried, and with different judges would have gone ahead without much fuss. Besides, what was the net effect? And extra four days to debate in parliament? Much ado about nothing.

 

[Gassy]

So, you're actually basing your argument that the supreme court was convinced by remainers, even though they found that legally speaking - what Johnson did was unlawful. On top of that, you say that "at the same time it was hardly cut and dried" whilst 11/11 judges ruled it unlawful. It can't really get more decisive than that.

You can easily say "with different judges would have gone ahead" - but thats the equivalent of me now saying 'any other day, vote remain would have won, so really we should just remain' - the fact is, its the highest court in the UK (which you're now claiming to be corrupt - by saying they were convinced by remainers) with 11/11 judges that voted it was unlawful, there really isn't much to debate about the subject.

"Much ado about nothing" - when the government unlawfully prorogues parliament. And you have the cheek to say earlier in the thread "Don't mistake me for a tory" and "feel like you need to diversify your news sources Gassy".

 

[Gassy]

I see channel 4 have had to cancel the debate that was scheduled for Sunday because Boris backed out/didn't sign up. The debate was supposed to be on policies in climate change - doesn't look good on Boris tbh

 

[Millerbri]

I see channel 4 have had to cancel the debate that was scheduled for Sunday because Boris backed out/didn't sign up. The debate was supposed to be on policies in climate change - doesn't look good on Boris tbh

He only has one subject Gassy.
If it's not about his supposedly "wonderful new deal", he splutters like an old banger.
He either cant remember, or has no grasp of social and political arguments.
That's why he lies.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So, you're actually basing your argument that the supreme court was convinced by remainers, even though they found that legally speaking - what Johnson did was unlawful. On top of that, you say that "at the same time it was hardly cut and dried" whilst 11/11 judges ruled it unlawful. It can't really get more decisive than that.

The whole thing could have been a lot more decisive than that. The challenges in the High Court of Northern Ireland and the High Court of Justice for England and Wales were both dismissed, and even the proceedings in the Court of Sessions in Scotland were not considered serious enough for the interdict to be granted. It was only once Gina Miller & co. convinced the Scottish courts to rule differently than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that the issue had to be moved to the Supreme Court in the first place.

"Much ado about nothing" - when the government unlawfully prorogues parliament. And you have the cheek to say earlier in the thread "Don't mistake me for a tory" and "feel like you need to diversify your news sources Gassy".

The net effect of prorogation not going ahead was that parliament had four extra working days to do nothing at all. I take the point that it did matter to some people, but it really needn't have done.

I see channel 4 have had to cancel the debate that was scheduled for Sunday because Boris backed out/didn't sign up. The debate was supposed to be on policies in climate change - doesn't look good on Boris tbh

I'm sure that was Channel 4's intention given the relationship between them and the Tories, but I'm not sure how many people will fall for that narrative. They're in no position to pull a random climate change debate out of their arse and expect the Prime Minister to come running for them, especially when Boris has routinely declined to even give them interviews in the past.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1197560606494281729

 

[Gassy]

So now I get it, you're getting your news from twitter.

And I need to diversify?

 

[Laker]

The good news is we have an independent candidate standing in my constituency. The even better news is that he is an ex Brexit party MP who was stood down by Farage.

 

[Gladders]

So latest polls are out and despite the debate and labour releasing their manifesto, show Cons extending their lead. Opinium with massive 19 point lead!

Think this is obviously turning into a Brexit general election with the Tories the only real leave party and the others all sharing votes on remain. With leave/remain still almost 50/50 that is a lot of votes for the tories.

Parliaments big mistake was to block Brexit not compromise on the deal or not get behind a Corbyn government to secure a second ref before an election.

Looking like a majority of 40-50 for the Tories to me unless they make a massive blunder again or the polls are just completely wrong.
Looking like Swinson not wanting to work with Corbyn will mean she has actively enabled Brexit not block it and Corbyn finally agreeing to an election despite being behind in the polls will cost him his leadership.

 

[Gassy]

So latest polls are out and despite the debate and labour releasing their manifesto, show Cons extending their lead. Opinium with massive 19 point lead!

Think this is obviously turning into a Brexit general election with the Tories the only real leave party and the others all sharing votes on remain. With leave/remain still almost 50/50 that is a lot of votes for the tories.

Parliaments big mistake was to block Brexit not compromise on the deal or not get behind a Corbyn government to secure a second ref before an election.

Looking like a majority of 40-50 for the Tories to me unless they make a massive blunder again or the polls are just completely wrong.
Looking like Swinson not wanting to work with Corbyn will mean she has actively enabled Brexit not block it and Corbyn finally agreeing to an election despite being behind in the polls will cost him his leadership.

So be it, if Corbyn can’t get a hung parliament at the minimum then he probably needs to walk. I like Corbyn and his policies - I genuinely believe he’s the only one (apart from Greens) who actually believes in what he’s doing and genuinely wants to help people. The others I feel are in it for themselves.

If Swinson carries on, she will most likely sit with Nik Clegg in my books. Terrible leader who has the power at one point to really enact change and act on what they wanted/promised, but ultimately didn’t bother and will then continue to point fingers at others for it.

I think it will be closer than polls suggest, even exit polls last time showed a Tory majority so anything can happen and I expect Lib Dems to lose more seats to Labour

 

[Modernist]

So latest polls are out and despite the debate and labour releasing their manifesto, show Cons extending their lead. Opinium with massive 19 point lead!

Think this is obviously turning into a Brexit general election with the Tories the only real leave party and the others all sharing votes on remain. With leave/remain still almost 50/50 that is a lot of votes for the tories.

Parliaments big mistake was to block Brexit not compromise on the deal or not get behind a Corbyn government to secure a second ref before an election.

Looking like a majority of 40-50 for the Tories to me unless they make a massive blunder again or the polls are just completely wrong.
Looking like Swinson not wanting to work with Corbyn will mean she has actively enabled Brexit not block it and Corbyn finally agreeing to an election despite being behind in the polls will cost him his leadership.

Brexit party?

Maybe its a Brexit election for tory voters, you'd think if it was purely a brexit election then the LIB Dems would be doing better, I can only conclude this is because some remainers don't want article 50 retracted. Brexit is well down the list in importance for labour voters.

 

[Fompous Part]

I think it will be closer than polls suggest, even exit polls last time showed a Tory majority so anything can happen and I expect Lib Dems to lose more seats to Labour

If memory serves, the exit poll showed the Tories winning by an insufficient margin for a majority, which of course proved accurate.

May had a polling lead of approx. 20 points when she called the snap election, but that got smaller and smaller as the campaign wore on. There doesn't appear to be an equivalent 'narrowing' this year, but there are still three weeks to go.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So latest polls are out and despite the debate and labour releasing their manifesto, show Cons extending their lead. Opinium with massive 19 point lead!


Think this is obviously turning into a Brexit general election with the Tories the only real leave party and the others all sharing votes on remain. With leave/remain still almost 50/50 that is a lot of votes for the tories.


Parliaments big mistake was to block Brexit not compromise on the deal or not get behind a Corbyn government to secure a second ref before an election.


Looking like a majority of 40-50 for the Tories to me unless they make a massive blunder again or the polls are just completely wrong.

Looking like Swinson not wanting to work with Corbyn will mean she has actively enabled Brexit not block it and Corbyn finally agreeing to an election despite being behind in the polls will cost him his leadership.

I just wonder whether the 'shy Tory' phenomena might also apply to Corbyn. We've seen with Trump and Brexit that when the mainstream media narrative is that someone/something is deeply unpopular, the electorate might be embarrassed to admit their true position to a pollster, but still have no inhibitions in the voting booth.

Brexit party?

Maybe its a Brexit election for tory voters, you'd think if it was purely a brexit election then the LIB Dems would be doing better, I can only conclude this is because some remainers don't want article 50 retracted. Brexit is well down the list in importance for labour voters.

Not for Labour Leavers though, of which there are many.

 

[Fompous Part]

I think the most important point vis-à-vis polling is that a nationwide sample (however accurate) is of limited value when it comes to an election contested via FPTP. What really matters is polling in the key marginals. It’s all about the tactical voting in those seats, methinks.

 

[smat]

Yougov's MRP model, which successfully predicted the 2017 results in 93% of the seats (even Canterbury and Kensington) ten days before the election, is out on Wednesday night. If that shows a big Tory majority I might worry. But then I'll probably just dismiss it as Conservative propaganda anyway. My instinct is still towards a hung parliament or a small Tory majority.

I have done a small amount of door knocking for the Labour MP in Alyn and Deeside, our marginal. I can report nothing instructive apart from the fact that very few people seem to want this election. Brexit hasn't really come up as much as I expected, I have to say, but it is a very small sample.

Most of my hope is coming from the outstanding voter registration statistics, especially from the more Labour-friendly ages. Who knows, though, maybe it's Cummings' dark digital arts managing to reach the incel community...

 

[Modernist]

I just wonder whether the 'shy Tory' phenomena might also apply to Corbyn. We've seen with Trump and Brexit that when the mainstream media narrative is that someone/something is deeply unpopular, the electorate might be embarrassed to admit their true position to a pollster, but still have no inhibitions in the voting booth.



Not for Labour Leavers though, of which there are many.

Yes but you only have to look at the polls of what matters most to voters, labour voters Brexit polls just 21%.

I wonder what the polling would be if you took Brexit out of it, I can't imagine the tory manifesto would impress many. Unless there are a lot more rich people in the country who haven't been affected by austerity and can pay for private medical care.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Yes but you only have to look at the polls of what matters most to voters, labour voters Brexit polls just 21%.

I wonder what the polling would be if you took Brexit out of it, I can't imagine the tory manifesto would impress many. Unless there are a lot more rich people in the country who haven't been affected by austerity and can pay for private medical care.

Maybe I'm missing something but didn't they pledge to recruit an extra 50,000 nurses, 5,000,000 extra GP appointments per year, £34bn extra funding for the NHS per year, 40 new hospitals, free hospital parking etc.? You can never fully trust any manifesto of course, but it doesn't sound too bad, without being completely outside the realms of possibility either.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

This is great.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1199078480664842241

 

[Gladders]

Looks like Tories played it safe with their manifesto, nothing big in it to excite but nothing in it to get mad about either, so won't win them many votes but more importantly won't lose them any either.