The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

seems like total conjecture to me. If your priority is to get this horseshit out of the way asap then going with the already negotiated awful deal that nobody likes vs remain seems like an eminently sensible thing to do. No more talks, straight to referendum job done.

I can't see how that says coalition with Tories. It says lets get this horseshit over.

Why do people make this shit up?

Maybe that's the wrong priority.

For the record, YouGov's latest Remain vs Leave poll put Leave at 51% and Remain at 49%, so assuming that Swinson passing Johnson's WA would 'get this horseshit out of the way asap' seems like a very risky prediction.

EDIT: Also meant to say, nobody said anything about a 'coalition'; the formulation was 'a deal', which doesn't have to be the same thing.

Edited December 5, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Maybe that's the wrong priority.

It's their priority. It still in no way indicates what that tweet says

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

If your priority is to get this horseshit out of the way asap then going with the already negotiated awful deal that nobody likes vs remain seems like an eminently sensible thing to do

But if your preference is to remain, then a more sensible option would be a choice between remain and a less bad version of leave.  Especially since it is quite possible that another vote would result in leaving.

[mjmooney]

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I imagine there is a street somewhere , where every Handmaid living in it is called "ofBoris"

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

It still in no way indicates what that tweet says

Yes, it does.

Last week the Lib Dems announced, through a Layla Moran interview, that they were dropping their pledge to revoke Article 50 which has been so unpopular on the doorstep. Swinson confirmed this in a follow-up interview, and said that the policy now was to support a second referendum. Obviously, there needs to be two options for a referendum, so Lib Dem policy can either be to back Johnson's WA against Remain, or a different WA against Remain. In her interview last night, she made clear that her preference is for the former. The only way that could happen is if a] there is a hung Parliament in which the Lib Dems hold the balance of power, and b] she were to enter an arrangement (it doesn't have to be as permanent as a coalition) to provide support to pass the WA as long as a confirmatory referendum were attached. That would necessitate providing enough support for the Tories to remain the government for at least the duration of the referendum campaign, and so that is, de facto, Lib Dem policy now.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, it does.

Last week the Lib Dems announced, through a Layla Moran interview, that they were dropping their pledge to revoke Article 50 which has been so unpopular on the doorstep. Swinson confirmed this in a follow-up interview, and said that the policy now was to support a second referendum. Obviously, there needs to be two options for a referendum, so Lib Dem policy can either be to back Johnson's WA against Remain, or a different WA against Remain. In her interview last night, she made clear that her preference is for the former. The only way that could happen is if a] there is a hung Parliament in which the Lib Dems hold the balance of power, and b] she were to enter an arrangement (it doesn't have to be as permanent as a coalition) to provide support to pass the WA as long as a confirmatory referendum were attached. That would necessitate providing enough support for the Tories to remain the government for at least the duration of the referendum campaign, and so that is, de facto, Lib Dem policy now.

There's more chance of an agreement with Labour than the Tories agreeing to have a referendum attached to the WA

 

[bickster]

34 minutes ago, peterms said:

But if your preference is to remain, then a more sensible option would be a choice between remain and a less bad version of leave.  Especially since it is quite possible that another vote would result in leaving.

That's your opinion, that may not be LibDem (un)thinking

[HanoiVillan]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

There's more chance of an agreement with Labour than the Tories agreeing to have a referendum attached to the WA

 

I don't believe that for a moment. In the (highly unlikely) circumstances we're talking about, where the Lib Dems alone hold the balance of power, then Swinson would go to the Tories first (whose WA she prefers, remember), and there is no way that the Tories would turn her away and risk putting Corbyn in number 10 and themselves out of government. The Tories know they would have a good chance of winning a second referendum anyway.

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

(whose WA she prefers, remember),

Is that her absolute preference? I didn't watch the interview. What was the exact question and answer ? 

[Dodgyknees]

Swinson spends more time attacking Labour than the Tories, no chance would she side with Labour.

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's your opinion, that may not be LibDem (un)thinking

It's a fact that remainers generally have distinguished between more and less damaging forms of leaving.  There may be some who think that any form of leaving is equally bad as any other so that there is nothing to choose between them, but I suggest there's very few if any who hold that view.

If that is the case, then it follows that there is an upside for them in having the choice between remaining and leaving on a less bad deal, and no downside; unless you think that having an option of a less bad way of leaving might make some people vote for that who would otherwise have not, so that it tips the vote in favour of leaving.  That seems unlikely.

Not so much my opinion, just stating what seems to be rational for people who support remaining.  If the Libdems really have no preference between Johnson's deal and any different arrangement, I'd be interested to hear their reasoning.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

rational

There's your problem, this is politics

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, avfcDJ said:

Swinson spends more time attacking Labour than the Tories, no chance would she side with Labour.

The argument is they need to appeal to the wavering Tories who don't like Johnson's mob but are deathly fearful of Corbyn. So basically the Piss Tories have to portray themselves as moderate Tories. Which they basically are anyway but never mind.

But I do agree with the point generally. The Lib Dems are genuinely hostile to Labour. Because they're too left wing for a party quite at home working with Tories.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Swinson's interview last night should be big news, though it probably won't:

I don't feel so confident about his second prediction, but the first seems pretty much iron-clad at this point.

The real problem, for me, is that this (along with some of the things Lib Dems said in and around the time of the debate on the Implementation Bill) implies that they are okay with the method of how Johnson's WA would be put in to law as long as there's a referendum attached.

That's dumb.

 

[peterms]

It was thoughful of the poster to point out which ones are the ER demonstrators.

But what happens next? 

Do they look for pollen, and do a little dance to show the others where to find it?  Or are they hibernating?

 

[Mozzavfc]

Someone probably left a window open, they flew in, couldn't find the way out, and now are having a power nap

[cyrusr]

3 hours ago, Chindie said:

The argument is they need to appeal to the wavering Tories who don't like Johnson's mob but are deathly fearful of Corbyn. So basically the Piss Tories have to portray themselves as moderate Tories. Which they basically are anyway but never mind.

But I do agree with the point generally. The Lib Dems are genuinely hostile to Labour. Because they're too left wing for a party quite at home working with Tories.

This. 

The reality is that if you look at the Political Compass you see that the Lib Dems are setting themselves where the Tories were before: 

Any old-school Tory voter that would feel at home with moderate Tories such as Ken Clarke would never dream of joining up with Corbyn and wouldn't vote for anyone that would prop him up. That is why Lib Dems have to go hard against the Labour to play into that electoral market.

It is also why they won't ever go formally into coalition with Labour. If we get to the stage where Labour needs the support of Lib Dems &/or SNP to form a government, it will not be a coalition; it will merely be an agreement to support the proposals for Brexit and a 2nd referendum. If they go into coalition again not only will they have echos of what they did 10 years ago, but they will anger those votes that they have immediately gained.

It is also the only way I can currently see getting out of the Brexit scenario without jumping off a cliff or undermining a vote that the press and half the country seems to be determined is the be all and end all of the argument. Whilst a few will still see it as undemocratic, I am sure most will just be relieved that it has been dealt with and we can all finally move on. 

[peterms]

 

[HanoiVillan]

Too busy to face Andrew Neil, though.