Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hard way. Gaining votes is not enough

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited February 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hard way. Gaining votes is not enough

In some ways, the 2017 election went as expected for the Conservative party. When the election was called on 18 April, the seven polls that had been published so far that month had averaged 43.3%. When the election was held on 8 June, the Conservatives tallied 42.4%. Any soothsayer would have been happy with that degree of accuracy. This represented a net increase of 5.5% of the vote share on the 2015 result. Clearly the Conservative message gathered new recruits.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • ElliotElliot Posts: 399
    brilliantmaps.com/europe-relationships/

    Turns out the ghastly Brexit Britain is one of the least racist places in Europe.
  • "There has been a lot of commentary on the static nature of the polls at present. Why is this surprising? The two drivers of votes last year, Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn, remain much as they were. Britain has not yet left the EU, the terms on which it will do so have not yet been agreed and so few have changed their minds about the merits of Brexit. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn remains in situ."


    There are only one or two examples of major shifts in polling so soon after an election anyway.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,296
    I would agree the next GE is anyones

    SteveF has called it already though so we all may as well not bother.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975
    Elliot said:

    brilliantmaps.com/europe-relationships/

    Turns out the ghastly Brexit Britain is one of the least racist places in Europe.

    We're not racist. We just don't like foreigners.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    It's interesting to see how the nature of marginal seats has changed in recent years.

    Places like Dartford, Gravesham, Chatham & Aylesford, Hemel Hempstead, Welwyn Hatfield, Torbay, Somerton & Frome, North Warwickshire, Waveney, The Wrekin, Great Yarmouth, Mid-Dorset, Kingswood and a string of traditional battlegrounds now fall firmly into the Conservative camp.

    Conversely, a string of traditional marginals like Enfield North, Ilford North, Bristol West, Wirral South, Tynemouth, Brentford & Isleworth, Luton North and South, Exeter, are now firmly in the Labour camp.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,370

    I would agree the next GE is anyones

    SteveF has called it already though so we all may as well not bother.

    I will hopefully be in John Mann's constituency next GE :o
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,296
    Pulpstar said:

    I would agree the next GE is anyones

    SteveF has called it already though so we all may as well not bother.

    I will hopefully be in John Mann's constituency next GE :o
    Really where you moving to?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,646
    edited February 13
    Good article from Alastair as ever. The point about the GE2017 surprise being Labour out-performance rather than Conservative under-performance is a crucial one. It still seems remarkable that Corbyn and McDonnell, of all people, should have been able to hoover up such a wide range of centre-left votes; I think most of us would have predicted (and did predict) the exact opposite. Even now I don't really claim to understand the phenomenon, although various hypotheses might explain some of it.

    As regards the future, I'm very suspicious of any undue certainty about how things might play out. I can see plausible scenarios from a good Con majority (new leader, Brexit seen as not too much of a disaster, a competent Tory campaign, Corbyn's extremism better exposed, Labour's current truce breaking down) to a small working Labour majority (Con disunity getting worse, the wrong new leader or one not properly accepted by the party, Labour continuing to become more professional, and Labour gains in Scotland). Or it may be indecisive again, if the LibDems recover a bit, and the SNP fight back more successfully than they have in recent months.

    Obviously Brexit is a crucial issue in all of this, and a major cause of uncertainty. On that subject, I found this blog on Labour's positioning interesting:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/13/why-a-clear-confident-espousal-of-soft-brexit-is-less-risky-than-labour-fears/
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    Pulpstar said:

    I would agree the next GE is anyones

    SteveF has called it already though so we all may as well not bother.

    I will hopefully be in John Mann's constituency next GE :o
    I thought Corbyn had called it. Did he not tell the Corbynista Youth at the Glastonbury rally that he would be PM by the end of 2017. The revised it to 2018. Did McDonnell not declare recently that Labour was a government in waiting?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,296
    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,296
    edited February 13
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.

    How much canvassing did you do?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    I would go along with the thrust of this article. To the comment that the Corbyn risk is greater for Labour than risks to the Tories, I would add the suggestion that Labour's electoral problem is ipso facto easier to solve. Labour's problem is centered on Corbyn, so he can be removed. The Conservatives' problem is bound up in an intractable Brexit that is very hard to unpick
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 25
    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    I still think some on the right don't understand that some voters (maybe less than 5%, but that is still a lot when Lab gains were 9.6%) didn't vote Labour pre 2016 because we thought they were too right wing. Some of Labs existing coalition LIKE the idea of Corbyn as PM, or Abbott as Home Secretary (I think she would be great, as the job description doesn't actually include memorising large numbers and instead includes policy).

    So whilst some centrist voters who voted for Ed may have gone Tory, I think they mostly held their nose and stayed with Lab because they couldn't vote for Tory Brexit / Theresa who did not come across as centrist as Dave did. Leave voters who voted Lab pre 2016 may come back into the fold once Brexit is done, maybe they won't. I assume the same with Tory Remainers who went Lab. If this really was a realignment election then maybe nobody will move and we're stuck in a world of roughly 40 for each and marginals / other parties will be the deciding factors.

    I've said before I think Brexit is more of a symbol for a realignment to those who hold cosmopolitan views versus those who don't, and economics / NHS is nibbling on those edges. Theresa isn't Dave and can't do the hug a hoody / vote blue get green stuff that convinced some more cosmopolitan (but economically conservative) people to vote Blue during the post Brown era, but Corbyn is losing some of the working class Midland / Northern vote who don't agree with changing social norms (which they partly blame New Labour for), modernisation and other things (but probably agree more with him on economics than they do Tories).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    An occasional post on something other than "Corbyn is a loser" might add a bit of interest and variety.

    There was genuine support and enthusiasm for Corbyn and Corbynism, however marmite that may be to you. I think there is every possibility of him winning the next GE. He is at his practiced best at campaigning. Unspun is the new spin.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995
    FF43 said:

    I would go along with the thrust of this article. To the comment that the Corbyn risk is greater for Labour than risks to the Tories, I would add the suggestion that Labour's electoral problem is ipso facto easier to solve. Labour's problem is centered on Corbyn, so he can be removed. The Conservatives' problem is bound up in an intractable Brexit that is very hard to unpick

    Corbyn will be a bigger topic of debate at the 2022 GE than Brexit - which will be in the rear view mirror.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,487
    Off topic, and channeling my inner plato, it seems that Londoners are desperate for Yorkshire pussies...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-43045322

  • TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    I would go along with the thrust of this article. To the comment that the Corbyn risk is greater for Labour than risks to the Tories, I would add the suggestion that Labour's electoral problem is ipso facto easier to solve. Labour's problem is centered on Corbyn, so he can be removed. The Conservatives' problem is bound up in an intractable Brexit that is very hard to unpick

    Corbyn will be a bigger topic of debate at the 2022 GE than Brexit - which will be in the rear view mirror.

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.

    How much canvassing did you do?
    The interesting thing about the Labour manifesto is that it was not a Corbynista one. Although the sums did not add up, it was quite moderate and mainstream. Corbyn did not have the courage or the honesty to put forward the hard left policies that he has been espousing for decades. A 1983 style manifesto was more apt for him. Apart from the sums, it was a good manifesto. I could easily vote for it. Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan Neil Kinnock and John Smith could all have put forward such a manifesto -and Corbyn would have accused them of betrayal of socialism for it.

    The problem for Labour was the people in charge of the Party at the election. Voters did not want Corbyn as PM, Abbott as home secretary, and McDonnell as chancellor. They do not want a Labour Party controlled by 80s Militant wit a new name. They do not like the nasty people behind the scenes or on the internet threatening, and the fascist tactics.

    So yes, the manifesto was good (but you couldnt fund it without raising taxes for most people) but behind it people recognised something really really nasty. Until Labour addresses that it is doomed to defeat.
  • Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    An occasional post on something other than "Corbyn is a loser" might add a bit of interest and variety.

    There was genuine support and enthusiasm for Corbyn and Corbynism, however marmite that may be to you. I think there is every possibility of him winning the next GE. He is at his practiced best at campaigning. Unspun is the new spin.
    Corbyn lost. He gave the Tories a third term. And he will give them a fourth.

    I am not going to be intimidated by Corbynista bullying. Get over yourself.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,546
    edited February 13
    I think the key to winning the next election is not so much gaining swing voters or squeezing third parties as I suspect there is not much more that can be done. The key will be getting your voters out. I think differential turnout will be the decider.

    The Tories as ever will depend on loyalty and habit from their elderly voters. But I don't get the impression that they're fired up and motivated by Tory policies and execution. On the other hand Labour supporters are fired up by the promise of Labour policies and a change for the better.

    Canvassing locally I notice that anti-Tory and anti-Brexit voters are very fired up and eager to vote whereas Tory voters are a bit downbeat and reluctant supporters. Many Tories may not bother coming out to vote on May 3rd.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    stevef said:

    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    An occasional post on something other than "Corbyn is a loser" might add a bit of interest and variety.

    There was genuine support and enthusiasm for Corbyn and Corbynism, however marmite that may be to you. I think there is every possibility of him winning the next GE. He is at his practiced best at campaigning. Unspun is the new spin.
    Corbyn lost. He gave the Tories a third term. And he will give them a fourth.

    I am not going to be intimidated by Corbynista bullying. Get over yourself.
    Michael Foot in 1983 still hold the record in this country for the biggest general election rally of all time. Crowds flocked to him and he was mobbed. But voters didnt vote for the Corbynista manifesto of 1983 which Corbyn didnt have the guts to put forward in 2017.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995

    TGOHF said:

    FF43 said:

    I would go along with the thrust of this article. To the comment that the Corbyn risk is greater for Labour than risks to the Tories, I would add the suggestion that Labour's electoral problem is ipso facto easier to solve. Labour's problem is centered on Corbyn, so he can be removed. The Conservatives' problem is bound up in an intractable Brexit that is very hard to unpick

    Corbyn will be a bigger topic of debate at the 2022 GE than Brexit - which will be in the rear view mirror.

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    But we will have Brexit-ed by then.

    Yes there will be discussion about the future but it wont be on squabbling on our terms of exit - that will have passed.

    Also I assume the EU's spin machine will have moved on - not sure what Faisil Islam will cover to be honest.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,646

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,995

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Brexit issues in 2022 ? What will they be - should we rejoin to leave again ?
  • That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    Johnson is only a Brexiteer because he calculated supporting Brexit would enhance his leadership chances more than backing Remain. Rees-Mogg is a committed hardline Brexiteer who wants as clean a break as possible from the EU.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,646

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    I can't imagine Rees-Mogg agonising about which way to go.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,653
    I agree with the King of Langley.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,489
    edited February 13

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    "The bottom line. Is grandfathering difficult or impossible? No, for the most part, it shouldn’t be. But even where it’s relatively straightforward, the task is time-consuming. There’s a lot to copy, adjust and check. If there were only one agreement to deal with, it could be completed quite quickly. But the number of negotiations the UK will be involved in for Brexit is huge."

    Sounds about right.

    Edit: should have said, thanks for the article - it really is interesting as a lawyer.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,157

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    What stands out is the sheer volume of bureaucracy that we'll need to set up, a veritable Everest of red tape.
  • Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    What stands out is the sheer volume of bureaucracy that we'll need to set up, a veritable Everest of red tape.
    It sounds like a lot of work up front, but not much (save for country of origin) red tape likely over and above what we have now.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,517
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.

    How much canvassing did you do?
    The interesting thing about the Labour manifesto is that it was not a Corbynista one. Although the sums did not add up, it was quite moderate and mainstream. Corbyn did not have the courage or the honesty to put forward the hard left policies that he has been espousing for decades. A 1983 style manifesto was more apt for him. Apart from the sums, it was a good manifesto. I could easily vote for it. Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan Neil Kinnock and John Smith could all have put forward such a manifesto -and Corbyn would have accused them of betrayal of socialism for it.

    The problem for Labour was the people in charge of the Party at the election. Voters did not want Corbyn as PM, Abbott as home secretary, and McDonnell as chancellor. They do not want a Labour Party controlled by 80s Militant wit a new name. They do not like the nasty people behind the scenes or on the internet threatening, and the fascist tactics.

    So yes, the manifesto was good (but you couldnt fund it without raising taxes for most people) but behind it people recognised something really really nasty. Until Labour addresses that it is doomed to defeat.
    So the policies they put forward were okay, but there is something about the Labour leadership which is uniquely repellant and yet somehow undefinable?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.

    How much canvassing did you do?
    The interesting thing about the Labour manifesto is that it was not a Corbynista one. Although the sums did not add up, it was quite moderate and mainstream. Corbyn did not have the courage or the honesty to put forward the hard left policies that he has been espousing for decades. A 1983 style manifesto was more apt for him. Apart from the sums, it was a good manifesto.

    Snip

    .
    Agreed. But, it is not difficult to create a wonderful manifesto, “apart from the sums”

    Getting the sums right is the really difficult bit.

    I object to claims like we can have a National Care Service for 3 billion pounds, because I can see that the claim is not serious.

    The first thing to do when carrying out any task is to get the budget right. If you don’t t the budget right, you’ll fail.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    I can't imagine Rees-Mogg agonising about which way to go.
    His act is more polished.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872
    I think the Conservatives win the next election if they deliver on public services.

    I think Labour win if they're perceived not to be a threat to people's property.

    If neither of those two things are clear, it will be close.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,707
    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Foxy said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    An occasional post on something other than "Corbyn is a loser" might add a bit of interest and variety.

    There was genuine support and enthusiasm for Corbyn and Corbynism, however marmite that may be to you. I think there is every possibility of him winning the next GE. He is at his practiced best at campaigning. Unspun is the new spin.
    Corbyn lost. He gave the Tories a third term. And he will give them a fourth.

    I am not going to be intimidated by Corbynista bullying. Get over yourself.
    Michael Foot in 1983 still hold the record in this country for the biggest general election rally of all time. Crowds flocked to him and he was mobbed. But voters didnt vote for the Corbynista manifesto of 1983 which Corbyn didnt have the guts to put forward in 2017.
    To be fair , on many aspects , Corbyn respected the current democratic policy set out by the Labour Party for example Trident renewal against his own personal position.
    In the 1980s I was totally against Unilateral nuclear disarmament.However now , I honestly think it is not so clear cut, and I would probably take the SNP position.I like that he takes the members into consideration and is not an autocrat.I am not a member of any party , but it seems that the Labour and Lib Dems have a say and some influence.Hard to see what you get as.a Conservative member on input to policy decisions.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    Johnson is only a Brexiteer because he calculated supporting Brexit would enhance his leadership chances more than backing Remain. Rees-Mogg is a committed hardline Brexiteer who wants as clean a break as possible from the EU.
    But not from Rome.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,653
    Mr. Topping, good news! We've already left the Roman Catholic Church.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,487

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    I find it confusing that some of the same people who accuse the Moggster of being a rabid right-wing baby-eater also condemn him for being opposed to the killing of unborn babies.

    I must have missed out on the explanatory leaflet.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 25

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    Will the other countries be happy to grandfather stuff in? Surely the deals they made with the EU would be based on the EUs leverage as a block, and so give and take would be on that basis. Why should any other country give us the same deal they gave the EU if we don't have all the things the EU do? Would that make the EU guarantors of our trade deals?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668
    148grss said:

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    Will the other countries be happy to grandfather stuff in? Surely the deals they made with the EU would be based on the EUs leverage as a block, and so give and take would be on that basis. Why should any other country give us the same deal they gave the EU if we don't have all the things the EU do? Would that make the EU guarantors of our trade deals?
    Because they can either spend a lot of time and effort and get a 5% improvement on the current deal, or roll it over and spend the resource on a deal where they don’t currently have one and therefore have more upside potential
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,975

    Mr. Topping, good news! We've already left the Roman Catholic Church.

    Not all of us, Morris, not all of us. Perhaps not even all PMs in waiting.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,668

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    I find it confusing that some of the same people who accuse the Moggster of being a rabid right-wing baby-eater also condemn him for being opposed to the killing of unborn babies.

    I must have missed out on the explanatory leaflet.
    It’s illogical to kill unborn babies because this limits the food supply
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872
    The Conservatives need to try and tip 25 Labour seats into their column. However, I think the churn will continue, so if I were the Tories, I'd focus (again) on a 40:40 strategy, or possibly
    even 60:40 if the resources are available, and informed by a YouGov-like model.

    I think seats like Bristol North West, Ilford North, and Enfield Southgate are gone. They'd only
    seriously come into play again if the professional urban middle-classes there felt their property to be under real threat. But, I'd keep picking at Darlington, Plymouth Sutton, Blackpool South, Great Grimsby, Derby, Keighley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Barrow.

    Labour need to win the Swindons and Milton Keynes. They are already sweating a target list, and a number of London seats should naturally fall to them, but they can't assume Corbynism/McDonnellism won't be found out over the next 4 years, and the new towns might not like it.

    I'd be working a tighter target list of 50-60 seats for them, to ensure that they can take power with just one sympathetic partner in a S&C deal or loose coalition and with EVEL, and a Lab-Lib majority over the Cons in the Lords, that should be enough for them to start their programme.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,369

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    Johnson is only a Brexiteer because he calculated supporting Brexit would enhance his leadership chances more than backing Remain. Rees-Mogg is a committed hardline Brexiteer who wants as clean a break as possible from the EU.
    That is why he led the leave campaign but hadn't Boris been writing anti-EU stuff (straight bananas and so on) for the Telegraph back in the 90s?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791

    The Conservatives need to try and tip 25 Labour seats into their column. However, I think the churn will continue, so if I were the Tories, I'd focus (again) on a 40:40 strategy, or possibly
    even 60:40 if the resources are available, and informed by a YouGov-like model.

    I think seats like Bristol North West, Ilford North, and Enfield Southgate are gone. They'd only
    seriously come into play again if the professional urban middle-classes there felt their property to be under real threat. But, I'd keep picking at Darlington, Plymouth Sutton, Blackpool South, Great Grimsby, Derby, Keighley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Barrow.

    Labour need to win the Swindons and Milton Keynes. They are already sweating a target list, and a number of London seats should naturally fall to them, but they can't assume Corbynism/McDonnellism won't be found out over the next 4 years, and the new towns might not like it.

    I'd be working a tighter target list of 50-60 seats for them, to ensure that they can take power with just one sympathetic partner in a S&C deal or loose coalition and with EVEL, and a Lab-Lib majority over the Cons in the Lords, that should be enough for them to start their programme.

    While that may be a sound strategy for Labour, it does not tally well with Corbyn's plans for the Community Organising Unit. He seems to want to retake the Saxon Shore coastal towns. He may well be onto something, or be mocked again for poor targetting, time will tell.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42599895
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,523
    Very nice summary of the current situation.

    My personal theory is that the pro Corbyn appeal is partly that he is seen as authentic.
    And partly that people like his policies.

    A future Labour leader can keep the pppular policies.
    But he or she will need to be seen as authentic to keep the coalition.

    That suggests to me that Labour need their next leader to have been on board with Corbynism.
    Not credible to have Chukka for instance saying he has been won round to free tuition fees or nationalising utilities.

    And If Labour can get a leader who doesn’t so offend the anti-Corbynites I think they may be on to a winner.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,236

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.
    Why do you think Rees-Mogg is any more an ideological Brexiteer than Boris is?
    I find it confusing that some of the same people who accuse the Moggster of being a rabid right-wing baby-eater also condemn him for being opposed to the killing of unborn babies.

    I must have missed out on the explanatory leaflet.

    It's always surprised me that anti-abortion has found it's home within right wingery....

    The left should have hoovered up all the bible thumpers long ago. Jesus, the Madonna and St Peter's and Francis hardly strike me as tea party types.
  • chrisoxonchrisoxon Posts: 196
    Charles said:

    148grss said:

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    Will the other countries be happy to grandfather stuff in? Surely the deals they made with the EU would be based on the EUs leverage as a block, and so give and take would be on that basis. Why should any other country give us the same deal they gave the EU if we don't have all the things the EU do? Would that make the EU guarantors of our trade deals?
    Because they can either spend a lot of time and effort and get a 5% improvement on the current deal, or roll it over and spend the resource on a deal where they don’t currently have one and therefore have more upside potential
    Also a fairly large proportion of the deals are with countries where the UK has a negative balance of payments. In time the UK is likely to be more liberal than the EU given the nature of industry - quotas for oranges and olives aren't going to be high on the list of UK needs. Hopefully further liberalisation of goods can serve as a gateway to discussions about service access.
  • The Conservatives need to try and tip 25 Labour seats into their column. However, I think the churn will continue, so if I were the Tories, I'd focus (again) on a 40:40 strategy, or possibly
    even 60:40 if the resources are available, and informed by a YouGov-like model.

    I think seats like Bristol North West, Ilford North, and Enfield Southgate are gone. They'd only
    seriously come into play again if the professional urban middle-classes there felt their property to be under real threat. But, I'd keep picking at Darlington, Plymouth Sutton, Blackpool South, Great Grimsby, Derby, Keighley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Barrow.

    Labour need to win the Swindons and Milton Keynes. They are already sweating a target list, and a number of London seats should naturally fall to them, but they can't assume Corbynism/McDonnellism won't be found out over the next 4 years, and the new towns might not like it.

    I'd be working a tighter target list of 50-60 seats for them, to ensure that they can take power with just one sympathetic partner in a S&C deal or loose coalition and with EVEL, and a Lab-Lib majority over the Cons in the Lords, that should be enough for them to start their programme.

    I don't think the Cons should give up on Bristol NW. It is always been a close seat (Cons held on by 45 votes in 92) and slightly Lab leaning. The Cons should still be able to win in a good year.
  • The Conservatives need to try and tip 25 Labour seats into their column. However, I think the churn will continue, so if I were the Tories, I'd focus (again) on a 40:40 strategy, or possibly
    even 60:40 if the resources are available, and informed by a YouGov-like model.

    I think seats like Bristol North West, Ilford North, and Enfield Southgate are gone. They'd only
    seriously come into play again if the professional urban middle-classes there felt their property to be under real threat. But, I'd keep picking at Darlington, Plymouth Sutton, Blackpool South, Great Grimsby, Derby, Keighley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Barrow.

    Labour need to win the Swindons and Milton Keynes. They are already sweating a target list, and a number of London seats should naturally fall to them, but they can't assume Corbynism/McDonnellism won't be found out over the next 4 years, and the new towns might not like it.

    I'd be working a tighter target list of 50-60 seats for them, to ensure that they can take power with just one sympathetic partner in a S&C deal or loose coalition and with EVEL, and a Lab-Lib majority over the Cons in the Lords, that should be enough for them to start their programme.

    If I were Labour, I would be resolving my problems in the bagel belt which is three maybe four seats.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    rkrkrk said:

    Very nice summary of the current situation.

    My personal theory is that the pro Corbyn appeal is partly that he is seen as authentic.
    And partly that people like his policies.

    A future Labour leader can keep the pppular policies.
    But he or she will need to be seen as authentic to keep the coalition.

    That suggests to me that Labour need their next leader to have been on board with Corbynism.
    Not credible to have Chukka for instance saying he has been won round to free tuition fees or nationalising utilities.

    And If Labour can get a leader who doesn’t so offend the anti-Corbynites I think they may be on to a winner.

    But Corbyn did not put forward his hard left policies at the last election. He chose to hide behind a moderate mainstream manifesto. (which was not properly funded nevertheless).
  • 148grss said:

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    Will the other countries be happy to grandfather stuff in? Surely the deals they made with the EU would be based on the EUs leverage as a block, and so give and take would be on that basis. Why should any other country give us the same deal they gave the EU if we don't have all the things the EU do? Would that make the EU guarantors of our trade deals?

    Most countries will, no doubt; but for some that have only recently agreed deals with the EU - such as Canada and perhaps Japan - there will be no real downside to a renegotiation as the default is WTO terms, which is basically what they already have.

    The real point in the article, though, is that given the way FTAs are negotiated and the provisions they contain, there can be no automatic grandfathering - line by line adjustments will have to be made. Given the timeframe and the UK's manpower shortfall, even if there are no problems we are up against it.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,370
    edited February 13

    The Conservatives need to try and tip 25 Labour seats into their column. However, I think the churn will continue, so if I were the Tories, I'd focus (again) on a 40:40 strategy, or possibly
    even 60:40 if the resources are available, and informed by a YouGov-like model.

    I think seats like Bristol North West, Ilford North, and Enfield Southgate are gone. They'd only
    seriously come into play again if the professional urban middle-classes there felt their property to be under real threat. But, I'd keep picking at Darlington, Plymouth Sutton, Blackpool South, Great Grimsby, Derby, Keighley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Barrow.

    Labour need to win the Swindons and Milton Keynes. They are already sweating a target list, and a number of London seats should naturally fall to them, but they can't assume Corbynism/McDonnellism won't be found out over the next 4 years, and the new towns might not like it.

    I'd be working a tighter target list of 50-60 seats for them, to ensure that they can take power with just one sympathetic partner in a S&C deal or loose coalition and with EVEL, and a Lab-Lib majority over the Cons in the Lords, that should be enough for them to start their programme.

    I don't think the Cons should give up on Bristol NW. It is always been a close seat (Cons held on by 45 votes in 92) and slightly Lab leaning. The Cons should still be able to win in a good year.
    No seat exemplifies Labour's 'city/remain' surge better than Bristol NW. The Tories were 1-14 to hold https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/odds-latest-betting-general-election-41024 before the GE. It is now amongst the Labour heartland seats near me of Rother Valley and Bassetlaw in the 'ordered list'.
  • That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.

    Johnson's problem will be that Brexit has made him a very polarising figure. I am not sure he would peel many votes away from Labour in the kinds of places where Remainers decided the outcome. Presumably, his manifesto would be all about a buccaneering Britain - whatever that means. That clearly has very heavy Brexit overtones.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719

    That depends on who is leading the Tories. If it is someone like Johnson or Rees Mogg, Brexit will be front and centre.

    Rees-Mogg, yes. But Boris is not an ideological Brexiteer, and I think he'd campaign on more inclusive issues.

    Johnson's problem will be that Brexit has made him a very polarising figure. I am not sure he would peel many votes away from Labour in the kinds of places where Remainers decided the outcome. Presumably, his manifesto would be all about a buccaneering Britain - whatever that means. That clearly has very heavy Brexit overtones.
    Johnson's speech tomorrow will be make or break for this approach.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,397
    stevef said:

    The interesting thing about the Labour manifesto is that it was not a Corbynista one. Although the sums did not add up, it was quite moderate and mainstream. Corbyn did not have the courage or the honesty to put forward the hard left policies that he has been espousing for decades. A 1983 style manifesto was more apt for him. Apart from the sums, it was a good manifesto. I could easily vote for it. Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan Neil Kinnock and John Smith could all have put forward such a manifesto -and Corbyn would have accused them of betrayal of socialism for it.

    The problem for Labour was the people in charge of the Party at the election. Voters did not want Corbyn as PM, Abbott as home secretary, and McDonnell as chancellor. They do not want a Labour Party controlled by 80s Militant wit a new name. They do not like the nasty people behind the scenes or on the internet threatening, and the fascist tactics.

    So yes, the manifesto was good (but you couldnt fund it without raising taxes for most people) but behind it people recognised something really really nasty. Until Labour addresses that it is doomed to defeat.

    I didn`t bother to take a fine toothcomb to the Labour manifesto, but I had the distinct impression at the time that they had gone through all the Lib Dem policies of the last thirty years and thrown them all together without further thought or crafting. They even added the standard Lib Dem claim that the policies had been costed (true in the case of the Lib Dems). Most untrue in the case of Labour.

    So it is not surprising that it was non-Socialist and appealing. On top of which it never came under scrutiny.

    But if we had ended up with a Corbyn government, I agree with Steve F. Its policies would not have looked in the slightest like the manifesto.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    148grss said:

    Not sure that this has been linked to previously, but it's a very detailed analysis of how difficult it is going to be for the UK to replicate the trade agreements it currently has through the EU. Obviously, the Brexit loons will have no interest whatsoever, but it may give more pragmatic, thoughtful Leave supporters cause for concern.

    Will the other countries be happy to grandfather stuff in? Surely the deals they made with the EU would be based on the EUs leverage as a block, and so give and take would be on that basis. Why should any other country give us the same deal they gave the EU if we don't have all the things the EU do? Would that make the EU guarantors of our trade deals?
    Moving from a multilateral arrangement to a set of bilateral ones is very complicated. The bilateral ones won't be the same or facilitate trade to the same extent.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006

    One of the reasons why Corbyn is such a disastrous leader is that everyone knows he and McDonnell are hard left Marxists who would have liked to put forward a 1983 type manifesto but in 2017 they chose to hide behind a moderate and mainstream manifesto. People in key marginals simply do not believe that Corbyn and McDonnell once in power would not revert back to hard left policies, nor do they have any confidence that they are competent to run an economy. They are repelled by Corbynista intimidation and bullying, and by Corbyn's past associations. They are disgusted by McDonells threats to lynch female politicians. And by Militant's return in the ugly form of Momentum.

    Then there are the sums that dont add up. Corbyn's promised to abolish tuition fees for new students and to sort out historic tuition fees. To give everyone in the Public Sector a substantial pay rise. To nationalise rail and water. To properly fund the NHS and Social care. No mention of Tory cap on welfare in the manifesto but it would be unthinkable that Corbyn would not.

    A substantial increase in spending but all on Thatcherite/Blairite levels of taxation. Corbyn promised that he would not raise taxes for 95% of the population, and that Corporation Tax would not be raised beyond Blairite levels.

    How on Earth is he going to fund all that spending without raising taxes for most people?

    The gaps in Labour's economic thinking, the leadership's failings and incompetence, the fascist behaviour of the Corbynista fanatics behind Corbyn, the infilitration by Momentum,the failure to make the leap between commendable spending plans and the ability to fund them will all ensure that Corbyn fails to win that substantial part of Middle England which would be crucial to him entering Downing Street.

    Whether someone like Thornberry, whom I would support, could do so is open to question.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791
    PClipp said:

    stevef said:

    The interesting thing about the Labour manifesto is that it was not a Corbynista one. Although the sums did not add up, it was quite moderate and mainstream. Corbyn did not have the courage or the honesty to put forward the hard left policies that he has been espousing for decades. A 1983 style manifesto was more apt for him. Apart from the sums, it was a good manifesto. I could easily vote for it. Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan Neil Kinnock and John Smith could all have put forward such a manifesto -and Corbyn would have accused them of betrayal of socialism for it.

    The problem for Labour was the people in charge of the Party at the election. Voters did not want Corbyn as PM, Abbott as home secretary, and McDonnell as chancellor. They do not want a Labour Party controlled by 80s Militant wit a new name. They do not like the nasty people behind the scenes or on the internet threatening, and the fascist tactics.

    So yes, the manifesto was good (but you couldnt fund it without raising taxes for most people) but behind it people recognised something really really nasty. Until Labour addresses that it is doomed to defeat.

    I didn`t bother to take a fine toothcomb to the Labour manifesto, but I had the distinct impression at the time that they had gone through all the Lib Dem policies of the last thirty years and thrown them all together without further thought or crafting. They even added the standard Lib Dem claim that the policies had been costed (true in the case of the Lib Dems). Most untrue in the case of Labour.

    So it is not surprising that it was non-Socialist and appealing. On top of which it never came under scrutiny.

    But if we had ended up with a Corbyn government, I agree with Steve F. Its policies would not have looked in the slightest like the manifesto.
    The Labour manifesto was rather a rush job, cut and paste, but mostly by reason of having a snap election. I wouldn't weigh it too seriously.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010


    The day that A C Grayling finally went mad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    Corbyn got 40% and a hung Parliament last time by squeezing the LDs, Greens, SNP and UKIP rather than winning many Tory converts.

    To win 45%+ and a working majority next time he needs to add Tory voters onto that total as well
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,872
    A C Grayling is Elliot Carver:

    http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/Elliot_Carver
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 16,117
    Sean_F said:

    ttps://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/963313788832436224

    The day that A C Grayling finally went mad.

    He’s been quite mad since the day after the referendum.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,157
    edited February 13
    Sean_F said:



    The day that A C Grayling finally went mad.

    Yes, a distraction from Brexit seems a bit far fetched. But odd behaviour by Williamson nonetheless. Now, I'm not saying he'd start a war with China to enhance his leadership credentials but...
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,641

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn got 40% and a hung Parliament last time by squeezing the LDs, Greens, SNP and UKIP rather than winning many Tory converts.

    To win 45%+ and a working majority next time he needs to add Tory voters onto that total as well

    Or the Tories lose votes to the other parties....
  • RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The obvious way for the young to force a second referendum is to support a party actually proposing one.

    Which of course they (mainly) refuse to do.

    Of course the issue does not arise for me because as far as I am concerned the matter is closed, the war lost.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,295

    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The obvious way for the young to force a second referendum is to support a party actually proposing one.

    Which of course they (mainly) refuse to do.

    Of course the issue does not arise for me because as far as I am concerned the matter is closed, the war lost.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,517
    Foxy said:

    The Conservatives need to try and tip 25 Labour seats into their column. However, I think the churn will continue, so if I were the Tories, I'd focus (again) on a 40:40 strategy, or possibly
    even 60:40 if the resources are available, and informed by a YouGov-like model.

    I think seats like Bristol North West, Ilford North, and Enfield Southgate are gone. They'd only
    seriously come into play again if the professional urban middle-classes there felt their property to be under real threat. But, I'd keep picking at Darlington, Plymouth Sutton, Blackpool South, Great Grimsby, Derby, Keighley, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Barrow.

    Labour need to win the Swindons and Milton Keynes. They are already sweating a target list, and a number of London seats should naturally fall to them, but they can't assume Corbynism/McDonnellism won't be found out over the next 4 years, and the new towns might not like it.

    I'd be working a tighter target list of 50-60 seats for them, to ensure that they can take power with just one sympathetic partner in a S&C deal or loose coalition and with EVEL, and a Lab-Lib majority over the Cons in the Lords, that should be enough for them to start their programme.

    While that may be a sound strategy for Labour, it does not tally well with Corbyn's plans for the Community Organising Unit. He seems to want to retake the Saxon Shore coastal towns. He may well be onto something, or be mocked again for poor targetting, time will tell.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42599895
    Having been born in and lived in three Saxon shore towns I'd say if that's Corbyn's plan he might well have some luck. I don't think Labour is those voters first choice, but I think they could be won round with some work. I know on paper it is hopeless, but on the ground West Worthing looks like a place in need of some love and which might repay it. That's how the Lib Dems got Eastbourne after all.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 111
    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.
    I'm genuinely surprised enough people randomly selected on the doorstep would have read even a precis of the various manifestos, they are not light reads.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,517
    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,006
    kle4 said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.
    I'm genuinely surprised enough people randomly selected on the doorstep would have read even a precis of the various manifestos, they are not light reads.
    Why didnt Corbyn put forward the hard left manifesto he had been advocating for 30 years?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    edited February 13
    Barnesian said:

    I think the key to winning the next election is not so much gaining swing voters or squeezing third parties as I suspect there is not much more that can be done. The key will be getting your voters out. I think differential turnout will be the decider.

    The Tories as ever will depend on loyalty and habit from their elderly voters. But I don't get the impression that they're fired up and motivated by Tory policies and execution. On the other hand Labour supporters are fired up by the promise of Labour policies and a change for the better.

    Canvassing locally I notice that anti-Tory and anti-Brexit voters are very fired up and eager to vote whereas Tory voters are a bit downbeat and reluctant supporters. Many Tories may not bother coming out to vote on May 3rd.

    The wards up in May were last fought in 2014 when Ed Miliband won the local elections by 2% and UKIP got 17%. Given the neck and neck polls and the collapse of the UKIP vote, Labour may not make as many gains in May as it expects to
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 16,719
    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The argument isn't that their votes should count for more; it's that their votes will be counted again, and again, and again, and again, so if this will ultimately lead to Brexit being reversed, we might as well save ourselves the hassle and cancel it now. (With the bonus for Eurosceptics that we'd keep our opt-outs.)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,295
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281
    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    I think the poor ld performance was predicted by quite a few - the path to 15-20 seats was very hard on the polls for them, and doing as well as they did relied on good results in Scotland and some very specific targeting paying off, so there were arguing that going backwards was as likely as going forwards, perhaps more likely.

    At the end of the day they are simply not popular, and presumably therefore what they are offering is not very popular, for all it seems like some of it should be. Perhaps lots of pepole do want a second referendum, but not if it means voting ld apparently.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281

    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The argument isn't that their votes should count for more
    Though there have been the occasional, hopefully parody, points like that!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    "Voting is anti-democratic"




    .






    On the side of a bus
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,568



    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.

    Doughnut logic.

    If you want to reverse Brexit, you need the Labour centre/right to gain control of the party.

    That was rendered impossible by the GE result.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,234
    edited February 13
    kle4 said:

    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    I think the poor ld performance was predicted by quite a few - the path to 15-20 seats was very hard on the polls for them, and doing as well as they did relied on good results in Scotland and some very specific targeting paying off, so there were arguing that going backwards was as likely as going forwards, perhaps more likely.

    At the end of the day they are simply not popular, and presumably therefore what they are offering is not very popular, for all it seems like some of it should be. Perhaps lots of pepole do want a second referendum, but not if it means voting ld apparently.
    Quite a few people predicted they wouldn't win many seats, because the battleground was so tough. Very few were expecting their overall vote percentage to fall. Farron was a big problem early on and they never picked up any momentum as the campaign became increasingly about the big parties and their leaders, and the terrorist interruptions.

    "Tim Farron cost Theresa May her majority." Discuss.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    edited February 13
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn got 40% and a hung Parliament last time by squeezing the LDs, Greens, SNP and UKIP rather than winning many Tory converts.

    To win 45%+ and a working majority next time he needs to add Tory voters onto that total as well

    Or the Tories lose votes to the other parties....
    Most Tories are hardly likely to vote Green or SNP or the ardent Remain LDs, their vote is pretty solid now especially with the UKIP collapse
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281

    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.
    Even though labour are Brexit ing too?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256
    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    52% voted Leave 42% voted Tory
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,487
    kle4 said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.
    I'm genuinely surprised enough people randomly selected on the doorstep would have read even a precis of the various manifestos, they are not light reads.
    I think when voters mention the manifesto they are really referring to what they've heard on the news about the manifesto. I've never seen one, never mind read one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256

    kle4 said:

    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    I think the poor ld performance was predicted by quite a few - the path to 15-20 seats was very hard on the polls for them, and doing as well as they did relied on good results in Scotland and some very specific targeting paying off, so there were arguing that going backwards was as likely as going forwards, perhaps more likely.

    At the end of the day they are simply not popular, and presumably therefore what they are offering is not very popular, for all it seems like some of it should be. Perhaps lots of pepole do want a second referendum, but not if it means voting ld apparently.
    Quite a few people predicted they wouldn't win many seats, because the battleground was so tough. Very few were expecting their overall vote percentage to fall. Farron was a big problem early on and they never picked up any momentum as the campaign became increasingly about the big parties and their leaders, and the terrorist interruptions.

    "Tim Farron cost Theresa May her majority." Discuss.
    The LDs got 18% in the county council elections in May, collapsing to 7% in the general election in June most of which went to Labour
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,517



    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.

    Doughnut logic.

    If you want to reverse Brexit, you need the Labour centre/right to gain control of the party.

    That was rendered impossible by the GE result.
    But I wasn't voting to reverse Brexit. We've had a referendum. I was voting to kick the government for getting us into this mess in the first place.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 227



    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.

    Doughnut logic.

    If you want to reverse Brexit, you need the Labour centre/right to gain control of the party.

    That was rendered impossible by the GE result.
    I can't see that party winning power in order to change anything though, I think people forget what a poor position Labour were in pre Corbyn. I don't think Labour are going to completely ignore the referendum, without some real changes in peoples opinion but they are the more likely to commit to a soft brexit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300

    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The argument isn't that their votes should count for more; it's that their votes will be counted again, and again, and again, and again, so if this will ultimately lead to Brexit being reversed, we might as well save ourselves the hassle and cancel it now. (With the bonus for Eurosceptics that we'd keep our opt-outs.)
    Implying that their opinion is fixed. It isn't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281

    kle4 said:

    stevef said:

    stevef said:

    Labour got 40% DESPITE Corbyn, not because of him. Labour would have won that election if it wasnt for Corbyn. Voters didnt suddenly acquire a desire to be governed by incompetent old Marxists. Many of them did want to stop May getting a big majority which would give her freedom to pursue any Brexit she liked.

    Labour cannot win a general election so long as Corbyn and McDonnell are in charge, as long as Labour seriously use the words "Abbott" and "Home Secretary " in the same sentence, and for so long as Labour behaves in a fascist way with its Cult of Personality, its Corbyn colouring books and Christmas Annuals, and its sinister songs to the Leader.

    There may well be a period of stalemate for a while, but I expect the Tory tanks to break the deadlock in 2022, and when that happens there will be much Corbynista grinding of teeth.

    So you have said 841 times.
    I'm flattered that you should pay me so much attention. But in this country we have freedom of speech. I know Corbynistas on the internet want to put a stop to that with their threats and intimidation but there is no point in them using their fascist tactics on me.I will go on expressing my opinion -and the truth as I see it -for as long as I wish.
    Good for you perhaps all those people I canvassed who told me Corbyns LAB manifesto was excellent were lying to me.
    I'm genuinely surprised enough people randomly selected on the doorstep would have read even a precis of the various manifestos, they are not light reads.
    I think when voters mention the manifesto they are really referring to what they've heard on the news about the manifesto. I've never seen one, never mind read one.
    Sounds more like it
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    RobD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The argument isn't that their votes should count for more; it's that their votes will be counted again, and again, and again, and again, so if this will ultimately lead to Brexit being reversed, we might as well save ourselves the hassle and cancel it now. (With the bonus for Eurosceptics that we'd keep our opt-outs.)
    Implying that their opinion is fixed. It isn't.
    Do tell me what Leavers are doing to persuade Remain voters to rethink. Because from here it looks like Leavers are simply cementing Remain voters in their original decision.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    kle4 said:

    Metatron said:

    Theresa May ran a terrible campaign and if she had run a half-decent campaign she would have got more votes.Labour won seats like Canterbury and Kensington that they never dreamed of winning.
    The biggest factor of the 2017 election was the abysmal performance of the Lib Dems.
    Did any PB readers predict it?
    Not me and I still do not understand why millions of remainers in England did not vote Lib Dem.Or even now why they are still struggling to make any appeal.
    If the tories do not hold a 2nd referendum on Brexit I expect things to change.There will be lots of losers after Brexit and they will blame the Tories if they do not hold a 2nd referendum

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.
    Even though labour are Brexit ing too?
    If you don't like what the government is doing, you punish the government. End of.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543



    I can't speak for anyone else, but I went into GE2017 fully intending to vote Lib Dem. I only swung to Labour at the last minute when the polls suggested they might not be doing quite as badly as I thought they were going to. Had Labour been competitive throughout the campaign I'd have switched much sooner. My logic was simple. The government is doing Brexit. Vote for the ones most likely to get rid of them.

    Doughnut logic.

    If you want to reverse Brexit, you need the Labour centre/right to gain control of the party.

    That was rendered impossible by the GE result.
    Nonsense. If public opinion shifts, Labour will follow. The large majority of the MPs are just waiting for such an opportunity
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 38,256

    RobD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The argument isn't that their votes should count for more; it's that their votes will be counted again, and again, and again, and again, so if this will ultimately lead to Brexit being reversed, we might as well save ourselves the hassle and cancel it now. (With the bonus for Eurosceptics that we'd keep our opt-outs.)
    Implying that their opinion is fixed. It isn't.
    Do tell me what Leavers are doing to persuade Remain voters to rethink. Because from here it looks like Leavers are simply cementing Remain voters in their original decision.
    Given Remain lost it is Leavers who need to be persuaded to switch their Brexit views not Remainers
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    Brexiteers are still searching for the killer argument against a second referendum.

    Some young people are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think their votes should count for more. I wonder if they’ll think the same when they’re 65+?
    The argument isn't that their votes should count for more; it's that their votes will be counted again, and again, and again, and again, so if this will ultimately lead to Brexit being reversed, we might as well save ourselves the hassle and cancel it now. (With the bonus for Eurosceptics that we'd keep our opt-outs.)
    Implying that their opinion is fixed. It isn't.
    Do tell me what Leavers are doing to persuade Remain voters to rethink. Because from here it looks like Leavers are simply cementing Remain voters in their original decision.
    Given Remain lost it is Leavers who need to be persuaded to switch their Brexit views not Remainers
    Funny you should say that, I have quite a lot to say on that subject when I have time to write a thread header on it.
This discussion has been closed.