The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Oh?

Because Brexit and maths. I don't know whether you meant 80% of all seats (=530 ish), or 80% of currently tory held seats (about, what, 250 ish), but whichever, "the best chance to beat the Tories *is* voting Labour" claim can at best be based on what happened last time there was an election - so if you're using, say in 250 of the 300 odd Tory held seats, labour came second last time, it absolutelty doesn't follow that right now the best plan in those seats is to vote Labour. If it is a remainy seat, or studently seat, then it's highly probably that in that location the LDs are now the front runner and voting Labour would actually increase the chance of a Tory win. Or it night be that Labour is still best placed, in that seat. Or it might be that the Brexit party is, in some leave areas - but my point is threefold - past election results can't be used to say if people vote for who came second in a seat last time, that's the best chance to beat the incumbent this time. And more so when there's a massive elephant in the room, such as Brexit. Also that unless there is actual reliable local polling, no-one knows what will will happen, and finally that events over the election period can massively alter the prognosis for parties. I would strongly wager that because of Brexit, than in more than 130 seats (20% of the total, from your 80% ) that either the BNXP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, SInn Fein, Independents, Lib Dems or Green are now likely to be best placed to beat the tories, and if we're just talking Tory held seats, then it's probaly half or more, now.

[HanoiVillan]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

Because Brexit and maths. I don't know whether you meant 80% of all seats (=530 ish), or 80% of currently tory held seats (about, what, 250 ish), but whichever, "the best chance to beat the Tories *is* voting Labour" claim can at best be based on what happened last time there was an election - so if you're using, say in 250 of the 300 odd Tory held seats, labour came second last time, it absolutelty doesn't follow that right now the best plan in those seats is to vote Labour. If it is a remainy seat, or studently seat, then it's highly probably that in that location the LDs are now the front runner and voting Labour would actually increase the chance of a Tory win. Or it night be that Labour is still best placed, in that seat. Or it might be that the Brexit party is, in some leave areas - but my point is threefold - past election results can't be used to say if people vote for who came second in a seat last time, that's the best chance to beat the incumbent this time. And more so when there's a massive elephant in the room, such as Brexit. Also that unless there is actual reliable local polling, no-one knows what will will happen, and finally that events over the election period can massively alter the prognosis for parties. I would strongly wager that because of Brexit, than in more than 130 seats (20% of the total, from your 80% ) that either the BNXP, SNP, Plaid, DUP, SInn Fein, Independents, Lib Dems or Green are now likely to be best placed to beat the tories, and if we're just talking Tory held seats, then it's probaly half or more, now.

All seats, because of course Labour losing seats to the Tories doesn't make Brexit less likely. 

The UK has never had much in the way of individual constituency-level polling, and even when Lord Ashcroft has done it the results have been middling at best, so past election results are by far the best guide we have available to us. Of course people can feel free to look back further than the last election in making this decision, but the truth is there are very few three-way marginals in England and Wales so if what you want to achieve by your vote is reducing the chance of Brexit or a hard Brexit or of a Tory-led government, then in the vast vast majority of constituencies you will have one realistic choice to do so. Sure, there are other reasons why people vote, so if people don't want to vote tactically, they don't have to. 

(In your response, you mention Northern Ireland, which I'm obviously discounting. It's possible that Scotland might drag the overall percentage down a little below 80%, as in Scotland there are more three-way marginals, but I'm assuming that not many people reading this are from Scotland, possibly unfairly). 

Edited October 29, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The UK has never had much in the way of individual constituency-level polling, and even when Lord Ashcroft has done it the results have been middling at best, so past election results are by far the best guide we have available to us.

Agreed on the first point. What about the local and Euro election results from last time - where LDs and Brexit parties won big style? Given the Brexit factor is a massive thing, I think it further underlines how the old "well, last GE this or that happened" is no kind of guide to now-times.

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Agreed on the first point. What about the local and Euro election results from last time - where LDs and Brexit parties won big style? Given the Brexit factor is a massive thing, I think it further underlines how the old "well, last GE this or that happened" is no kind of guide to now-times.

European elections have been a very poor predictor for general elections in the past (or else we would be coming to the end of a UKIP government). Rightly or wrongly, British voters treat European elections - and to a lesser extent local ones - as a 'free hit'/protest vote. 

[blandy]

48 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Rightly or wrongly, British voters treat European elections - and to a lesser extent local ones - as a 'free hit'/protest vote.

Yeah, in the past. This GE (if it happens) will likely be about Brexit, to a large if not completely dominant extent.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah, in the past. This GE (if it happens) will likely be about Brexit, to a large if not completely dominant extent.

I'm fairly skeptical about that, but we'll soon see one way or the other. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm fairly skeptical about that, but we'll soon see one way or the other. 

We will. Trying to look at it objectively, I think that generally those most enthusiastic about the whole Corbyn thing would share your view, though not unanimously so, whereas there is a very significant part of the voting population which is entirely focused on Brexit - either "just get it done" frustration, or "kill it". I'm sure that events will come to highlight various stuff that isn't Brexit - maybe a terrorism or NHS or Industrial thing, but I'm also sure that aspects of Brexit will also come into more focus - Scottish Independence, companies quitting the UK or whatever.

I guess if the election is about key labour issues, then they'll do better/less badly and if it's about Brexit, then they'll get hammered (unless they somehow come up with a coherent policy that's more easily digested by people in the interim).

As you say, we'll see.

[chrisp65]

Yeah, we need a real cold spell and ambulances in car parks and another of Johnson’s shags to be in the ‘papers.

Hopefully Trump can say something crass about getting his little orange hands on the NHS.

[bickster]

My local Labour council have been told that there are 4 areas in the borough with high NO2 levels that they must introduce some measures to get this reduced. They have decided to introduce a congestion charge type thing...

Now so far this sounds sensible and in line with current thinking. But then we get to the details.

They are only going to charge Taxis, Buses, HGVs, Lorries and Vans because these are predominantly diesel vehicles and it is they that are causing the pollution.

The four areas are these roads

Millers Bridge

Princess Way

Hawthorne Road

South Road

The first two are the roads that lead to the Freeport, so its predominantly the HGVs causing the pollution. Are they going to solve this problem? Not a frickin chance, the HGVs still need to get to the Freeport, now they might use alternative routes which will be hilariously bad in itself as the two roads that can accomodate HGVs between these two roads, really aren't built for it and are in more residential areas or they'll push the HGVs further into Liverpool city Centre to access the dock road by the only other viable route. The same amount of HGVs will still need to access the docks regardless and willcause the same pollution just a bit over there instead

Hawthorne Rd, is the councils own fault because they've been doing roadworks on THE main road into Liverpool from the North, well it seems like forever and it seems like theres still forever to go, which has forced a lot of raffic onto this road as the next best route, HGVs don't use this much, buses do though (it has the bus depot on it). The buses will still need to go in and out of the depot

South Rd, definitely not HGVs (you just wouldn't) so it must be buses, many routes and a bus terminus of sorts)

So just to be clear, the environmentalists would like everybody to use public transport but the council are going to charge to providers of public transport and environmental charge because they are bad for the environment... riiiiiggght Maybe they can change the route of the buses so they avoid areas where people live, that should solve it (the buses are also woefully underused anyway)

This will solve nothing, not one thing will be solved by this, the absolute freakin morons

[peterms]

 

[bickster]

6 hours ago, peterms said:

 

He doesn't have 3 months, even if he won the election, he has 7 weeks at best. Dianne Abbott must have been counting the days

[blandy]

8 hours ago, peterms said:

 

Labour's Brexit policy makes no sense at all, and they know it

They say 

Quote

A Labour government will negotiate a sensible deal within three months of being elected. It will be based on the things we always discussed and said were necessary with the EU and which are supported by trade unions and businesses. This includes a new customs union...,

 A new Customs Union. In 3 months. This is just untrue drivel. There is THE Customs Union, which we could stay part of. But Labour doesn't want to do that, it wants a "new" one. It can't have a new one. It is impossible, never mind in 12 weeks.

Quote

a close single market relationship and guarantees of rights and protections...

Again, another either in or out THE SM is all that's possible, particularly in 12 weeks of negotiating. This is another load of drivel, then.

Quote

Within six months of being elected, we will put that deal to a public vote, alongside remain... 

Before they do that the'll (they say) hold a conference to decide if they support the deal they've just negotiated. Jeremy won't say if he would recommend remaining or Leaving, but even allowing for his refusal to say, the party will either reject their own deal that they and their leader have just negotiated, or they'll be recommending leaving. So  they're saying they think they might be incompetent, but if they're not incompetent then they're a Leave party, offering a referendum.

Quote

Two clear options, both agreed with the EU – no false promises or bluster. Labour will then carry out whatever the people decide..

There is, as I've said, and as they effing know themselves, false promises and bluster in their policy.

Whoppers.

What could possibly go wrong?

[tinker]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Labour's Brexit policy makes no sense at all, and they know it

They say 

 A new Customs Union. In 3 months. This is just untrue drivel. There is THE Customs Union, which we could stay part of. But Labour doesn't want to do that, it wants a "new" one. It can't have a new one. It is impossible, never mind in 12 weeks.

Again, another either in or out THE SM is all that's possible, particularly in 12 weeks of negotiating. This is another load of drivel, then.

Before they do that the'll (they say) hold a conference to decide if they support the deal they've just negotiated. Jeremy won't say if he would recommend remaining or Leaving, but even allowing for his refusal to say, the party will either reject their own deal that they and their leader have just negotiated, or they'll be recommending leaving. So  they're saying they think they might be incompetent, but if they're not incompetent then they're a Leave party, offering a referendum.

There is, as I've said, and as they effing know themselves, false promises and bluster in their policy.

Whoppers.

What could possibly go wrong?

Doesn't sound as clear as Boris and " leave at all costs on the 31st"but at least its a plan and it would be put to the public vote even if thry thought the deal was bad and would prefer remain. 

To me it's keeping the options open rather than making promises you can't keep and would be foolish to even if you did .

Pressure mounting on the Tories now and their making mistakes all over the place , it's a shambles.

Russia's influence over the party must be investigated, its a direct threat to our nation and cannot be seen as Brexit only issue.  

[blandy]

55 minutes ago, tinker said:

Doesn't sound as clear as Boris and " leave at all costs on the 31st"but at least its a plan and it would be put to the public vote even if they thought the deal was bad and would prefer remain. 

To me it's keeping the options open rather than making promises you can't keep and would be foolish to even if you did .

Pressure mounting on the Tories now and their making mistakes all over the place , it's a shambles.

Russia's influence over the party must be investigated, its a direct threat to our nation and cannot be seen as Brexit only issue.  

It's slightly less stupid than the tories "plan" which is mental, true.

I differ with you on the next bit, because they will not get or do what they say they'll do in 3 months. So then what? What do they do. What does the EU do? we don't know and Labour doesn't know. They might say...OK, it's taking longer than we said it would, but we'll keep on negotiating to get something acceptable to bring back. We've seen what that's led to already. SO maybe in 6-8 months then they might have something, though it won't be what they say it will be - it won't be a NEW customs union, it won't be close to, but not in, the single market. It's not real world stuff. And then they have this special conference...and then they put something to a referendum but don't (understandably) actually have enough faith in themselves to be able to say "we'll recommend our own deal and Leaving" or the honesty or integrity to say "we want to remain" (if that's what they want). It's just a dishonest fudge.

There are 2 possible outcomes if we don't do a deal to stay in the SM and CU -  hard Brexit followed by years of trying to get back all the things we'll have thrown away, while being much worse off in financial and many other aspects than we are now, or revoke A50. That's it.

If Labour said "we'll leave, but stay in the CU and SM, then they'd get kudos from me for having a genuine alternative to the tories and LDs different hard leave/Remain policies. As it stands they don't have a real alternative, because they're torn between those two things. 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

A new Customs Union. In 3 months. This is just untrue drivel. There is THE Customs Union, which we could stay part of. But Labour doesn't want to do that, it wants a "new" one. It can't have a new one. It is impossible, never mind in 12 weeks.

Your argument is based on seeing three months as the period for sorting out all the detail of a new arrangement.  I see the proposal as being to seek agreement with the EU on the broad outline of what such a deal might look like, with a view to putting that to a vote.  As we know, any referendum is going to be about broad principles, not negotiating detail.

The EU have previously signalled that they would be open to considering a different arrangement that isn't constrained by May's absurd red lines.  It's quite reasonable to think there could be rapid agreement on some broad outlines.  If they had instead said it's May's deal or nothing, regardless of any changed UK position, then any suggestion of a different deal would be fanciful.  But that's not been the message coming from their side, I believe.

[bickster]

Tom Watson wants to be leader of the Labur Party so much he's just stepped down as an MP and Deputy Leader

[snowychap]

 

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

Your argument is based on seeing three months as the period for sorting out all the detail of a new arrangement.

To an extent it is, yes. This is because Labour's policy as written by them on their internet is as I wrote above - "A Labour government will negotiate a sensible deal within three months of being elected". Not cover the basics of an "arrangement" and work out the detail later, but an actual deal. If that's not what they are going to do so, they should say so. A deal's not a deal until it's set out in full. They don't talk about a "provisional" deal, or a "framework" or "setting out the fundamentals". ANd there are two parties to any deal. the EU have to agree, too, within this ludicrous 3 months. It's disingenuous at best. Dishonest is a more accurate term. 

[StefanAVFC]

All of the sensible MPs from both sides are leaving.

 

[Chindie]

If Watson going does spark a wave of resignations, there really is nothing like the Labour Party for foot shooting.