Support NeoGAF

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

Do tell.

I wish the media would go in on the politicians views more, they are so easily destroyed but the journalists usually just let them off or repeat what they said without challenge.

Guru-Murthy read him a quote about how the Iraq war gave terrorists a new pretext to attack Britain, Fallon huffed and puffed about it, then Guru-Murthy said they were the words of Boris Johnson and not Corbyn, and Fallon sputtered Torily in response

 

[IpKaiFung]

Do tell.

I wish the media would go in on the politicians views more, they are so easily destroyed but the journalists usually just let them off or repeat what they said without challenge.

https://twitter.com/coinflipppperr/status/868179564597530624

 

[PJV3]

Guru-Murthy read him a quote about how the Iraq war gave terrorists a new pretext to attack Britain, Fallon huffed and puffed about it, then Guru-Murthy said they were the words of Boris Johnson and not Corbyn, and Fallon sputtered Torily in response

That's the trouble when you don't allow nuance, it is easier to get caught out yourself.

 

[Jezbollah]

I think Fallon = the Tory Thornberry.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

That's the trouble when you don't allow nuance, it is easier to get caught out yourself.

Yup, totally agreed.

This has been a nightmare campaign for the Conservatives. Rough for everyone, really.

 

[Audioboxer]

The trident question also pissed me off, Corbyn made his position perfectly clear.

He doesn't believe in it but it was voted for so he is respecting that vote.

Why is that controversial? I mean if that's such a problem why didn't Andrew hound May about being remain yet now being hard brexit?

Because it is being used as a political smearing tool. You almost expect to wake up to "Corbyn's lack of a boner for Trident means Britain will get attacked again soon! START WORRYING NOW! DON'T VOTE LABOUR! YOUR KIDS!"

Everyone should actually have some respect Corbyn has morals around nuclear weapons, but no, it's the usual drum to beat about how our small collection of islands is a big War boy. We're under so much nuclear threat because we're so fucking powerful! The UK is the force to be reckoned with!

The only criticism I have for Corbyn is he had to roll out that piss poor manifesto support and couldn't take his own stance and get Labour behind it. Sadly, that would kill votes as there is too many in England that genuinely believe the Tories fear-mongering that Britain actually needs a nuclear "deterrent".

It'll probably take Scotland going independent to saddle the rUK with Trident for any of the other parties to start going, erm, where should we put this useless shit? Do we want to keep paying for it without Scotland contributing?

 

[Commander Jameson]

Do tell.

I wish the media would go in on the politicians views more, they are so easily destroyed but the journalists usually just let them off or repeat what they said without challenge.

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/868182862415228929

Edit: Already posted.

 

[IpKaiFung]

Fallon is just CCHQ's reliable dead cat flinger, he's always the first guy they put up to go on the TV/Radio for interviews.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Corbyn was okay. I mean, an interview that hostile is never going to be good, so "okay" is a pretty good outcome. Handled himself calmly, weathered a pretty brutal battering. Better than May, at least.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I'll never tire of seeing Tories making fools of themselves.

Corbyn's view is one shared by a lot of people, including Johnson and Cameron. The Iraq War definitely made the UK a bigger terrorist target. To pretend otherwise is naive.

The problem with Trident is that it's an outdated system from the Cold War, one of nuclear deterrence, but our current enemy isn't deterred by Trident. It was our on the ground police and intelligence fighting that battle, the same services the former Home Secretary callously cut.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'll never tire of seeing Tories making fools of themselves.

Corbyn's view is one shared by a lot of people, including Johnson and Cameron. The Iraq War definitely made the UK a bigger terrorist target. To pretend otherwise is naive.

The problem with Trident is that it's an outdated system from the Cold War, one of nuclear deterrence, but our current enemy isn't deterred by Trident. It was our on the ground police and intelligence fighting that battle, the same services the former Home Secretary callously cut.

The traditional defence budget shouldn't be getting slashed, it's Trident/Nuclear that should be getting thrown out. The War in Iraq was a colossal mistake good ole Blair will have to take to his grave being a War criminal. Even in the aftermath of that, the mess we've contributed towards has lead to an intelligence war in our own country. The threats we face are like those seen in Manchester, not nuclear missiles coming for us.

Even on the argument about an outdated nuclear weapon system, no, we do not need one at all, new or old. Such a cheek to whine at the world to disarm whilst sitting like a 4-year-old in a chair with their arms crossed screaming "no, you go first". America can do whatever it wants, it's about time the UK stops trying to be a mini-America. Their spendings on weapons are absolutely outrageous. What the UK needs to do is scrap Trident and then only use a reasonable portion of that cost for the anaemic traditional defences we have, and the rest going to more important shit for the people in the country.

Sadly I'm completely unconvinced the UK at large will ever unify behind a party that is anti-Nuclear weapons. The Tories do such a good job of turning the fear dial to over 9000 in so many of the general public. To the point of utter nonsensical statements that "Corbyn is a risk to national security". Slander like that should almost be punishable.

 

[jelly]

Guru-Murthy read him a quote about how the Iraq war gave terrorists a new pretext to attack Britain, Fallon huffed and puffed about it, then Guru-Murthy said they were the words of Boris Johnson and not Corbyn, and Fallon sputtered Torily in response

https://twitter.com/coinflipppperr/status/868179564597530624

That's the trouble when you don't allow nuance, it is easier to get caught out yourself.

Thanks and yep.

I don't think that will make it to voters though. May got her headline quote.

 

[Ashes]

https://twitter.com/coinflipppperr/status/868179564597530624

U-TURN or coin flipper.
#strong&stablemyarse

 

[Dabanton]

Michael Fallon just got destroyed on Channel 4 good lord

And his supposed to be the Tory attack dog he keeps talking L after L

 

[Coriolanus]

U-TURN or coin flipper.
#strong&stablemyarse

ymean mayarse, eh? eh?

 

[scotcheggz]

Ahahaha Fallon tho...

"I don't have the words in front of me"
"Well I've just told you them"
"I'll have to look at them"

What?! 😂

 

[D4Danger]

Corbyn's speech and interview don't seem to be getting any play on tomorrow's front pages

Doesn't look like the pre-planned Tory spin has worked out so well. They should've probably watched the speech first instead of attacking some fantasy version of it.

https://twitter.com/coinflipppperr/status/868179564597530624

what a prat. If you're going to change your opinion to try and win some cheap shots make sure there's no paper trail.

 

[ferrasvansen]

Corbyn's speech and interview don't seem to be getting any play on tomorrow's front pages

Doesn't look like the pre-planned Tory spin has worked out so well. They should've probably watched the speech first instead of attacking some fantasy version of it.



what a prat. If you're going to change your opinion to try and win some cheap shots make sure there's no paper trail.

They saw the poll yougov did and realised they would be attacking the majority view of the electorate, so papers skipped it knowing it would backfire.

 

[Uzzy]

Fallon is just CCHQ's reliable dead cat flinger, he's always the first guy they put up to go on the TV/Radio for interviews.

Emily Thornberry crushed him a few weeks back over meeting Assad. Don't think it made a blind bit of difference, to be honest. You could have pictures of Maggie Thatcher shaking hands with Gerry Adams and it wouldn't change a damn thing about the perception of Corbyn.

 

[Matty8787]

I was unsure of who to vote for coming in to this election as I am generally against both Lab and Con (Both had there fair share of chances and messed up was my reasoning)

On top of that I saw no way in for other parties, it is in all honesty just a two horse race.

But over the past week or so I have warmed to Corbyn and think the attacks he gets are ridiculous. What he said tonight has swayed it for me, and it is EXACTLY what I think the majority of people are thinking too.

I think that Labour can do this, May keeps on shooting herself in the foot and it is quite amusing to watch.

Labour, you have a vote from me.

 

[JonathanEx]

I sort of feel that... how much does the Neil interview matter if it doesn't make external headlines?

Corbyn is awkward on Trident and isn't supporting it? What's new?

 

[Hazzuh]

None of the major tabloids seem to have gone with attacks on Corbyn on their front page so it looks like his speech went pretty well.

 

[Matty8787]

None of the major tabloids seem to have gone with attacks on Corbyn on their front page so it looks like his speech went pretty well.

I think opinions are changing...

News anchors seem to be bashing Conservatives more as do the general public.

 

[Maztorre]

I never thought I'd see the day where I would feel a sense of nostalgia for Ian Paisley's attitudes towards Irish nationalism and the Troubles, which are now somehow more nuanced than those of the BBC and Conservative party, who have seemingly reverted to a "Brits Good, Paddies Bad" narrative from the 60s. To see the BBC blatantly using the Troubles as nothing more than a bludgeon to try for a gotcha about terrorism, literally 20 years after the Good Friday Agreement, is disgusting.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

https://twitter.com/coinflipppperr/status/868179564597530624

This is incredible.

 

[Moze]

It is crazy how much the attitude towards Corbyn has changed over the past 3 weeks. Even the attitude on this site has changed quite considerably. There was a point when I didn't even like to say I was a Corbyn supporter because of the amount of negativity surrounding him. Now it seems more people are happy to openly support him instead of talking about how he destroyed the Labour party.

 

[Pancake Mix]

TomWaitsForNoMan your bias is pretty clear too.

IThe problem with Trident is that it's an outdated system from the Cold War, one of nuclear deterrence, but our current enemy isn't deterred by Trident. It was our on the ground police and intelligence fighting that battle, the same services the former Home Secretary callously cut.

Russia is also an enemy and they are only deterred by force. MAD can keep them in line and stop them from flexing their muscles in the Baltics to start.

It's a shame Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, because you can be certain Putin would not have tried to annex Crimea if they hadn't.

Sadly, the agreement in which Ukraine handed over their Soviet-era nuclear weapons had a promise by Russia to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Not worth the paper it was printed on. Russia is a huge threat, forget about an invisible enemy that is difficult to fight, Russia is a visible one.

 

[Dabanton]

They saw the poll yougov did and realised they would be attacking the majority view of the electorate, so papers skipped it knowing it would backfire.

Yep it's common sense. Which is why I was baffled by what May is doing. Just makes her look very silly. A chance to break from the past and she chooses to keep on the same path.

One of the most telling things is the article about this on the daily mail a glance at the comments section must have had the mail newsroom reaching for the smelling salts.

Two most liked comments are as follows

Sd1, West Midlands, United Kingdom, 13 hours ago
But he's right, it's Bush and Blair's fault

7740 people liked that comment vs 1525 who disliked it.

grayo, ebbw vale, 13 hours ago
I'm not a Corbyn lover but I think what he says is dead right.

5555 liked that comment vs 1709 who disliked it.

The inevitability that the likes of the mail were pushing the last few weeks is looking very shaky. an event like this forces people to focus on day to day things and now our security how much are nurses and police are paid as first responders is high on the agenda the likes of the mail can't keep up the tory narrative.

Brexit has been pushed off the front pages.

 

[Theonik]

Russia is also an enemy and they are only deterred by force. MAD can keep them in line and stop them from flexing their muscles in the Baltics to start.

It's a shame Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, because you can be certain Putin would not have tried to annex Crimea if they hadn't.

The problem is Britain's nuclear deterrent is not terribly useful for deterring countries like Russia. Due to the nature of Britain and the fact it *only* has trident since getting rid of Vulkan bombers. It would be possible for the UK's launch capability to be incapacitated in a first strike. The real deterrent the UK actually has is that a Nuclear attack on it would incite retaliation from other nuclear powers. But let's not pretend the UK isn't over-relying on the US being magnanimous in that instance. So I would argue it is not significantly worse off without nuclear weapons.

Now unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a mistake and the genie isn't exactly going back in the bottle re; nukes. So what can the UK do to defend itself. Well, looking at UK's foreign interests and the threats it faces conventional forces not nuclear forces are what is sorely needed. I can't see a situation the UK Circa 2017 can pursue a Falklands war for instance. And you aren't going to nuke Argentina. As it is very unlikely any British politician would ever use Trident as a retaliation for conventional invasion of Eastern Europe. Putin knows this which is why he's been doing as he is. MAD only works on rational actors and even then they'd have to be stupid not to understand that their opponents are playing by the same rules.

 

[Dorsal Axe]

They saw the poll yougov did and realised they would be attacking the majority view of the electorate, so papers skipped it knowing it would backfire.

I find it bizarre that people expected otherwise in the first place. UK intervention in the Middle East has always been deeply unpopular amongst the public, and Iraq is the ever-beaten horse that will never die. Pretty much everyone I know has a strong opinion on the subject. There have been some amazing mental gymnastics on display today.

 

[Pancake Mix]

The problem is Britain's nuclear deterrent is not terribly useful for deterring countries like Russia. Due to the nature of Britain and the fact we *only* have trident since getting rid of Vulkan bombers, it would be possible for the UK's launch capability to be incapacitated in a first strike. The real deterrent the UK actually has is that a Nuclear attack on it would incite retaliation from other nuclear powers. But let's not pretend the UK isn't over-relying on the US being magnanimous in that instance. But I would argue we are not significantly worse off without nuclear weapons.

Now unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a mistake and the genie isn't exactly going back in the bottle re; nukes. So what can the UK do to defend itself. Well, looking at UK's foreign interests and the threats it faces conventional forces not nuclear forces are what is needed. I can't see a situation the UK Circa 2017 can pursue a Falklands war. And you aren't going to nuke Argentina. As it is very unlikely any British politician would ever use Trident as a retaliation for conventional invasion of Eastern Europe. Putin knows this which is why he's been doing as he is.

The bolded is nonsense, actually. It is publicly known that there is at least one submarine carrying the deterrent at all times and the prime minister leaves an instruction in the event of an attack on Britain that incapacitates the government.

The deterrent is safe. And no, nobody is saying that Trident should be used for that, but it's all part of MAD. Obviously, Trident is to protect the UK, but NATO is a defence agreement and there could be a conventional clash if any member's integrity is compromised by the Russians. If the Russian government were to try to attack Western countries with nukes as a response, then it would be the last thing they ever did.

Ukraine should not have given up their arms to Russia, and I think you agree there as you are against unilateral disarmament. That's a clear example of what could happen if there's a bully around.

As for the Falklands, it has a population of 3,000 in the far South Atlantic and the Argentines were never, ever, ever going to threaten with nukes (that they don't have). They aren't a nuclear power and the programme is not there because of Argentina anyway, despite their illegal attempt to claim territory that had no indigenous population and which Spain/Argentina did not settle first or often. Trident is only for deterrence (from a nuclear attack) and a response in the event of such a horrific indignity, so it's not relevant there.

 

[Theonik]

The bolded is nonsense, actually. It is publicly known that there is at least one submarine carrying the deterrent at all times and the prime minister leaves an instruction in the event of an attack on Britain that incapacitates the government.

The deterrent is safe. And no, nobody is saying that Trident should be used for that, but it's all part of MAD. Obviously, Trident is to protect the UK.

Ukraine, however, should not have given up their arms to Russia. That's a clear example of what could happen if there's a bully around.

And submarines are unsinkable as we all know. Look. There is a reason why nuclear powers developed nuclear Triads and don't rely strictly on SLBMs. First strikes don't only seek incapacitating the government but are centred around disabling the launch/war infrastructure itself.

Ukraine is an even more complicated situation. Both sides pressured them to abandon their nuclear weapons. Even if they had nukes though they probably wouldn't use them knowing that was the end of their country. MAD is about eliminating the nuclear threat from a nuclear entity but is not useful for deterring aggression. Russia could wipe Ukraine off the map if they wished. They still don't because then the west would retaliate. Or they might not.

E: So do you see UK overseas territories as parts of the UK worth defending? If so, should your defence capability not match the country? Moreover, the reason I brought it up is because the argument not to renew Trident is that the money could be used for better things. Including conventional forces which are more useful for the UK and these were illustrated examples of this.

 

[Maledict]

The problem is Britain's nuclear deterrent is not terribly useful for deterring countries like Russia. Due to the nature of Britain and the fact it *only* has trident since getting rid of Vulkan bombers. It would be possible for the UK's launch capability to be incapacitated in a first strike. The real deterrent the UK actually has is that a Nuclear attack on it would incite retaliation from other nuclear powers. But let's not pretend the UK isn't over-relying on the US being magnanimous in that instance. So I would argue it is not significantly worse off without nuclear weapons.

Now unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a mistake and the genie isn't exactly going back in the bottle re; nukes. So what can the UK do to defend itself. Well, looking at UK's foreign interests and the threats it faces conventional forces not nuclear forces are what is sorely needed. I can't see a situation the UK Circa 2017 can pursue a Falklands war for instance. And you aren't going to nuke Argentina. As it is very unlikely any British politician would ever use Trident as a retaliation for conventional invasion of Eastern Europe. Putin knows this which is why he's been doing as he is. MAD only works on rational actors and even then they'd have to be stupid not to understand that their opponents are playing by the same rules.

Um, I don't think you understand how britains nuclear deterrent works at all. The reason it's always at sea is to guarantee it cannot be taken out in a first strike. No matter how much of Britain you nuke, we will have enough left on one of our subs to retaliate and do the same.

I mean, that's the *entire* point of our submarines and trident. Literally.

Edit: I think you need to stop posting hon, you don't understand what you're talking about here. Britains nuclear missiles are carried on its Vanguard class submarines, which are nuclear powered. They are known as the stealth fleet for a reason. The entire purpose of a nuclear sub is to remain undetected - that's its basic running procedure. Needles in haystacks doesn't come close to finding a British nuclear submarine - you don't even know which ocean it's in at any one time, or how many are at sea!

 

[Theonik]

Um, I don't think you understand how britains nuclear deterrent works at all. The reason it's always at sea is to guarantee it cannot be taken out in a first strike. No matter how much of Britain you nuke, we will have enough left on one of our subs to retaliate and do the same.

I mean, that's the *entire* point of our submarines and trident. Literally.

See above.

 

[pulsemyne]

Subs are, by far and away, the best nuclear deterrent system going. It is incredibly hard to detect one and the fact that SSBM's have a long range means they can sit way off their target in the middle of nowhere. Couple that with the fact that one Trident sub can obliterate a huge chunk of a potential enemy like russia then you can see why it is such a valuable item to have. Each sub carrier 40 warheads each with a dial a yield upto 100ktons, that's nearly seven times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb and that's with the sub only half loaded, it can hold 16 missiles and each with 8 warheads, that's nearly Britians entire nuclear arsenal. They are terrifying machines.

 

[Pancake Mix]

And submarines are unsinkable as we all know. Look. There is a reason why nuclear powers developed nuclear Triads and don't rely strictly on SLBMs. First strikes don't only seek incapacitating the government but are centred around disabling the launch/war infrastructure itself.

Ukraine is an even more complicated situation. Both sides pressured them to abandon their nuclear weapons. Even if they had nukes though they probably wouldn't use them knowing that was the end of their country. MAD is about eliminating the nuclear threat from a nuclear entity but is not useful for deterring aggression. Russia could wipe Ukraine off the map if they wished. They still don't because then the west would retaliate. Or they might not.

They'd have to know how many subs are in the North Atlantic and where they are to incapacitate that. I think you're confused as to how Trident works. If the leadership is incapacitated due to a nuclear strike, any subs have all the tools to avenge an attack on the world's third most populous island or Northern Ireland, depending on the Prime Minister's note. They do not need any response from the UK, and they do not need permission from the US or NATO. They'd likely know what nation attacked prior to any communication shutdown and be able to open communication with allies if necessary. There's no reason to expect that such a secretive, independent, adaptive, and mobile system would be destroyed.

We've never had a situation where we've had to find out because nobody has been stupid enough to completely violate the full integrity of a nuclear power like Ukraine's integrity was violated. Hopefully we never do. My point is that the Russians have never been that stupid before, nor have they touched the Baltics, which are part of NATO.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I find it bizarre that people expected otherwise in the first place. UK intervention in the Middle East has always been deeply unpopular amongst the public, and Iraq is the ever-beaten horse that will never die. Pretty much everyone I know has a strong opinion on the subject. There have been some amazing mental gymnastics on display today.

As Guido Fawkes - of all sites - said, it turns out that populism is popular. But Corbyn's run into the problem of spouting popular policies but not being an appealing package. Has that changed?

One thought I have on the current situation is that Corbyn's current poll bounce is based on non-voters and 18-24 year olds. Either Corbyn is a genuine sea change in politics, and these two demographics are actually going to go out and vote, or the polls are wrong.

One thing that was under-reported was the minor Lib Dem bounce. Reading through their statistics, I note that post bomb about 50% of Lib -> Con switchers bounced back. But there was evidence of Lib -> Lab movement.

I recall one noted issue with the LD campaign was that it was failing to connect with Tory Remainers. I think that may be beginning to shift.

But nevertheless, the decline of the LD voteshare in the first half of the campaign is over, and we seem to have recovered. I'm hoping to see more 10% LD support polls coming out this weekend. Maybe we'll see a spooky 11% one.

My personal suspicion is that the left has caught a bit of Corbynmania. I think more dribbling away from the Tories is likely.

One major stumbling block that Corbyn has to overcome is Brexit. A lot of his vote base still believe he wants to remain in the single market. If the debate swings back on to Brexit in the next two weeks, as the Tories will be desperately hoping it will, catching Corbyn out on his Brexit policy will be pretty key to the overall story of how the Lib Dems do this election.

I'm basing that on my study of Twitter, btw. Lots of people say things like "I hope we get a Lab/LD coalition - that'll kill Brexit!"

Once the Tories drag the debate back on to Brexit, Corbyn could - although it does depend on if the LD national campaign can get a bit more visibility - end up between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Psychotext]

One thought I have on the current situation is that Corbyn's current poll bounce is based on non-voters and 18-24 year olds. Either Corbyn is a genuine sea change in politics, and these two demographics are actually going to go out and vote, or the polls are wrong.

I'm pushing 40 and I've gone from not being willing to vote for a Labour party with him in charge, to realising he's far better than the alternatives.

 

[Theonik]

They'd have to know how many subs are in the North Atlantic and where they are to incapacitate that. I think you're confused as to how Trident works. If the leadership is incapacitated due to a nuclear strike, any subs have all the tools to avenge an attack on the world's third most populous island or Northern Ireland, depending on the Prime Minister's note. They do not need any response from the UK, and they do not need permission from the US or NATO. They'd likely know what nation attacked prior to any communication shutdown and be able to open communication with allies if necessary. There's no reason to expect that such a secretive, independent, adaptive, and mobile system could be destroyed.

We've never had a situation where we've had to find out because nobody has been stupid enough to completely violate the full integrity of a nuclear power like Ukraine's integrity was violated. Hopefully we never do. My point is that the Russians have never been that stupid before, nor have they touched the Baltics, which are part of NATO.

I am well aware of the bolded btw. Nobody knows how a full scale nuclear war would go down in earnest which is why most the UK is the only developed Nuclear power to use SLBMs exclusively for its deterrent, but these aren't questions of power/credibility these are all differences in nuclear doctrine which is completely untested and hopefully never should be. If you wanted to go that direction you could talk about Russia's Dead Hand doomsday device system. But none of this matters.

My point still stands. I am well aware of all the reasons why the UK cannot pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament and people from all camps understand that point. The question is on whether the UK should divert more resources in conventional forces, probably at the expense of extending Trident. I mean. If your argument is that the UK's nuclear deterrent is so effective there would be no point in all this no?

E:

One thought I have on the current situation is that Corbyn's current poll bounce is based on non-voters and 18-24 year olds. Either Corbyn is a genuine sea change in politics, and these two demographics are actually going to go out and vote, or the polls are wrong.

I'm curious in how you substantiate your claim. Pollsters weigh on demographic turnouts historically as part of their methodologies. After the 2015 election, they adjusted their weights to be less favourable to labour's demographics not more.
If anything one could argue that given Corbyn's popularity with non-traditional labour demographics the polls represent Corbyn's baseline.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

My actual worry regarding our defence policy is that we have all our eggs in the nuclear basket. Conventional warfare is going to be transformed by AI and robotics in the next 15 to 20 years, and I'm not confident that the British armed forces will be able to keep up with the US.

Our solution to that problem is to make sure we have a strong independent deterrent, so even if the US is far more advanced than us, we still have some notion of sovereignty.

 

[mo60]

I don't expect the election campaign to change the UK tories fortunes much in the next two weeks or so. They aren't going to win a massive and historic landslide anymore and I think the labour party has a 55% chance of winning over 200 seats on June 8th. It also looks like the uk tories may underperform the prediction I made a few weeks ago at this point. It doesn't look like they will win 375+ seats at this point. Corbyn's political career may or may not be over by the end of this campaign.

 

[Coriolanus]

My actual worry regarding our defence policy is that we have all our eggs in the nuclear basket. Conventional warfare is going to be transformed by AI and robotics in the next 15 to 20 years, and I'm not confident that the British armed forces will be able to keep up with the US.

Our solution to that problem is to make sure we have a strong independent deterrent, so even if the US is far more advanced than us, we still have some notion of sovereignty.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by being able to keep up with the US?

Because even China will have quite a goddamn hard time doing that.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by being able to keep up with the US?

Because even China will have quite a goddamn hard time doing that.

Operational capacity - drones now, AI and robotics later.

---

I'm tinkering with numbers on Electoral Calculus tonight - and apart from getting a bit annoyed it I did find at least what I wanted, which was a few plausible final vote counts. Note that it's really difficult to model the Lib Dems at this election. Lots of returning former MP candidates and very tight targeting.

Tories recover from tailspin, Corbyn bounce dented: 43/35/10.

Tory majority of 60+ - May probably stays on, Corbyn probably stays on, Farron stays on depending on how well the targeting strategy worked.

Tories recover from tailspin, Corbyn bounce continues: 43/40/10.

Tory majority of 10-ish. Huge embarrassment for May, Corbyn vindicated. Farron stays on depending on targeting, as above. This begins to be the point where LD local swings in Tory seats make a huge difference - if Eastbourne, Lewes and a few other Tory seats fall to the Lib Dems, May could lose her majority. Having to enter coalition with the DUP would be humiliation.

Tories do not recover from tailspin, Corbyn bounce continues: 40/40/10

Tories are now short about 4 or 5, depending on where their vote is fleeing them. LD swing seats even more important. May almost certainly goes.

The Corbyn dream: 40/43/10

Tories cannot form a government. Labour cannot form a government. We go to the polls in October. Brenda from Bristol smashes a shop window in protest.

---

I'm thinking that the final LD vote number could be as high as 14%, but only if Farron nails the rest of the campaign, the Tories flounder, Corbynmania dies down AND Brexit goes back on the agenda. I think that combo is too much cherry picking to discuss, but it would almost certainly point to very good results in all of the Lib Dem target seats, potentially getting us up to about 23 seats or so. Bear in mind the golden number this election is 18 - that was what Ashdown got in 1992.

My pessimistic vote for the LDs is now about 9%. This would represent the Tories stabilising and Corbyn remaining strong. Even then I think we'd still be somewhere about, at very worst, 7-10 MPs. Farron would almost certainly resign, probably replaced by Jo Swinson, provided she gets elected.

Depending on the coming week, I'm not really able to be more specific than 7-23 seats for the LDs. It really, really depends on the targeting. Fortunately we've not got much to be scared of for losing seats to Corbyn - Hallam is safe, despite what some are saying, so the only one that might go south is Leeds North West, but if we didn't lose that in the Coalition backswing, I'm not sure we will in 2017.

At this point I'm pinning my hopes on three things.

1. Farron does OK on the Andrew Neil interview and the other TV appearances, and the national campaign is able to be visible over the next 12 days. Via various shenanigans.
2. Labour voters in LD/Tory target seats don't vote Labour, because they realise that Corbyn's only shot at being PM is if the Tories can't form a government.
3. Tory voters in LD/Labour targets don't vote Tory.

I think 2 and 3 will go well, but I'm worried about 1.

 

[Ashes]

Some of the images that have come out of Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Iraq... It makes one wonder... Who needs nuclear weapons?

 

[mo60]

Huge seat count range for the conservatives here.Don't think they will hit the higher end of this range anymore. They may not end up getting a seat count in the middle of this range on June 8th at this point.
https://twitter.com/Election4castUK/status/868157590211108869

Conservatives:313-415
Labour:165-261
LDems:3-16
SNP:31-54

 

[Ashes]

One thing to consider is that the possibility of the shy Tory vote might not be a factor as they're fully expected to win.

 

[Spaghetti]

Still haven't had a chance to see Corbyn's full speech yet (thanks 12 hour work day), but the Conservatives' response to it is fucking nuts. Are they panicking?

 

[Bleepey]

If labour somehow wins this calling a election might be the biggest backfire i've ever seen

Second only to Brexit. Lol Tories. Shane I am not crazy about Corbyn as PM

 

[Bleepey]

Theresa May is becoming bizarro Clinton at this rate - woman who got the job thanks to an invisible primary with no serious competition from party notables running a largely policy free campaign defending the status quo and focusing on perceived competence differences with the populist opponent, and then going to blow a large lead in the run-up to the election followed by a police/ intelligence issues causing a last moment oppo drop.

Haha. Strong and stable is the new "I'm with her". Lol

 

[PJV3]

Haha. Strong and stable is the new "I'm with her". Lol

May is very lucky to have Brexit because it almost guarantees her the victory, I'm amazed how badly they are running the campaign, they should have kept it vague and pretend they are for everyone. It was working really well so I have no idea why they started getting into the nitty gritty and worrying their core support like the elderly.

Strong and stable has become a bit of a joke with how rattled they look.