-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Man that May interview.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-she-is-doing-the-right-thing-a7442616.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-she-is-doing-the-right-thing-a7442616.html
PJV3
Member
PJV3
Member
These latest poll results have me thinking that May really should go the early election route, she would have an easier 5 years and an enormous cushion against bad news.
I get that Corbyn almost guarantees another term, but anything can happen like the tories cracking if negotiations go badly. May has great poll numbers but she hasn't actually done much of any note or made concrete decisions yet.
I get that Corbyn almost guarantees another term, but anything can happen like the tories cracking if negotiations go badly. May has great poll numbers but she hasn't actually done much of any note or made concrete decisions yet.
Roberto Larcos
Member
On the other hand, what's the rush? Labour aren't improving any time soon, she has a majority. By calling an election early, she'd be cutting her second term far shorter - because by that time, the country will be in economic ruin and there may even be competent opposition.
I signed although I can't think of a single one of these that has ever actually done anything of note. They'll schedule a time to talk about it, barely any MPs will show up, agree that the bill is fine, it gets forgotten about again.
That response from the Home Office is embarrassing. I get they can't just come out and say "We get why this is shitty" but still the defence of the bill being "We were doing all this illegally before anyway" is nuts.
It's true to be fair, privacy is at the heart of the act. The removal of it is the whole point of the act.
CyclopsRock
Member
Jesus, the Tories are ahead in the North by 10pts. They're ahead in literally every class demographic. The only thing they're behind on is 18-24, aka the people that don't vote.
Jezbollah
Member
Yep. UKIP was the gateway drug for ex Labour voters to consider voting Conservative. And parking the bus on the "We're the party for Brexit" too. I'm thinking an 80 to 100 majority right now.
PJV3
Member
I get the strategy, and I thought it was the best one until very recently.
She's never gonna get better numbers than this period of patriotism without consequences. She loses a couple of years of this term but gains a huge majority and avoids splits and rebellion. She will reduce Labour to a rump, talented and experienced MPs will be lost and the party will not recover in 5 years anyway.
CyclopsRock
Member
It'll also give greater legitimacy to her negotiating position re: Brexit. Even without a clear, public plan, a large majority would be a show of faith in her ability to represent the will of the people.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Legitimacy to who?
PJV3
Member
She can avoid a Gordon Brown and have the public on side.
She can avoid a John Major and have a thumping majority in Westminster. She can't do much about the EU as Boris is pissing everyone off, but they will know May is secure and not facing reelection for years after Brexit in 2019.
CyclopsRock
Member
Us in the UK, not the other leaders. She won't be dogged constantly about being unelected and can approach it like leaders approach almost any other international negotiations.
The Friendly Monster
Member
I see, it doesn't seem to be hurting her much at the moment though does it?
CyclopsRock
Member
No, but I think - in the same way the economy is fine - we haven't got anywhere with negotiation yet. Right now Brexit can be all things to all people. I think once the detail starts getting nailed down, having her own mandate will be important.
Jezbollah
Member
It seems that the Labour post-Chilcot policy with regards to Tony Blair is one of non-confrontation, which is quite interesting given Blair's "return to front line politics", whatever that means.
http://news.sky.com/story/labour-avoids-split-over-tony-blair-and-iraq-conflict-10678217
More Conservative MPs voted with the SNP than Labour, with Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott not bothering to show to vote.
http://news.sky.com/story/labour-avoids-split-over-tony-blair-and-iraq-conflict-10678217
More Conservative MPs voted with the SNP than Labour, with Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott not bothering to show to vote.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Anyone out on the doorstep across the country can tell you that Labour's vote is collapsing. If the LD canvas data in Richmond Park is right, then they're in spitting distance of losing their deposit there.
They're in a totally impossible situation, where their only obvious voter base right now is leave-voting Guardianistas.
I hope they do lose their depositi in Richmond - I am utterly furious at the party for contesting that seat. The *only* thing they can accomplish by competiting is ensuring that a racist Brexit-re gets into parliament. It's a disgrace.
And to be hon st, I don't think his base reads the guardian that much. I don't think the guardian massively supports him (even Owen Jones did an about face), and the guardian readers I know of are resigned to the party death. I think a lot of the people supporting him don't access mainstream media anymore.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The Lib Dems aren't much better placed. They've got a chance in by-elections, but they'd need a swing of more than 10% to take even 21 seats. Labour's demographic is really anyone who opposes the Conservatives and actually lives in a seat where they're viable.
Huw_Dawson
Member
On uniform national swing, yes, but uniform national swing is a bad indicator for how many seats the LDs win. We actually gained seats whilst losing votes for much of our journey from the formation of the merged party to 2010.
For example, there was the ICM (?) poll which asked voters who they'd back if Labour and the Tories were both pro-Brexit and the LDs sided with Remain, and the LDs came out on top in London (on a 200-person sample, so with about a 7% MoE though!).
London has 73 seats to win. If 40% of all of London's voters decided to vote LD, that might only be a few percentage points in UNS, but that's a lot more seats for the LDs.
The problem UKIP and the Greens have is that they're campaigning parties with few actually solid local parties that can win elections. So UKIP can win huge numbers of votes and no seats. But to actually get power in the UK, you have to do community politics with strong local parties.
That's why I'm calling UKIP as dead despite them having over 10% of voters declaring they'd vote for them. 10% in every constituency = no seats, and 40,000 members spread across the UK is simply not enough to run a national campaign whilst bankrupt.
So if we change the election system so that one seat is contested each week for 600+ weeks, and then you start again at the first seat, we'll eventually get a Parliament that's 100% Lib Dems? Who'll tell them so they can start drawing up the petition?
CyclopsRock
Member
Lib Dems aside, this would be a really interesting system to see shake out.
anonymous_abc
Member
A never ending election cycle sounds awful. nothing would ever get done...
CyclopsRock
Member
Hard to know, innit? Cause our elections now are only every 5 or so years so it's a big ol' bunch of fisticuffs that defines the next 5 years. If parliamentary majorities were a little more... fluid and we could see trends in them going up and down you wouldn't necessarily have to wait until a government fell to see real change being implemented. I mean, I'm not really championing it, but it would be interesting.
anonymous_abc
Member
CyclopsRock
Member
You're the resident champion of unusual election methods that's for sure.
Well that's the best bit - this is entirely compatible with the "name out of a hat" method. We could do both!
Huw_Dawson
Member
Fingers crossed I wake up to news that the Lib Dems now have a female MP in the morning.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Congratulations to the Lib Dems.
Congratulations to Sarah Olney MP. Fantastic speech.
Congratulations to Sarah Olney MP. Fantastic speech.
Nope. There was a large amount of anger amongst Labour people I know that the party was even trying - no-one is entirely sure *why* they were contesting, unless they wanted another Brexit MP in the house.
Amazing result though. That's an utterly ridiculous swing from the tories. And yet it's Labour who have to be afraid - this shows that polling about London voter intentions if Labour backs Brexit and the lib Dems back remain might actually be accurate. Labour stands to lose a lot more than the tories if london starts to shift like this.
There won't be that many Tory MPS affected by this, it's more Labour MPs who will be at risk. Zac was an outlier in where he was on Europe versus his constituency.
the tory majority consists of seats they picked up from the lib dems in 2015, many of them remain voting constituencies. even if the mp's personal politics are better than zach's i think it becomes very easy for lib dems to run against the national tory agenda of hurtling towards the hardest brexit.
Actually most of them voted to leave according to what I'm reading.
On a side note, how on earth is the following not challenged by a tv interviewer:
jacob Rees-mog said:
He is such an utterly, utterly loathsome piece of shit. One of my most detested MPs.
Who knows, the Lib Dems might reach double figures if more by-elections get called.
But yes, this does present a problem for Labour. Oppose Brexit and they'll be annihilated in the North, but even supporting a moderate, soft Brexit isn't acceptable to more metropolitan areas, which the Lib Dems can exploit.
But yes, this does present a problem for Labour. Oppose Brexit and they'll be annihilated in the North, but even supporting a moderate, soft Brexit isn't acceptable to more metropolitan areas, which the Lib Dems can exploit.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
But as a symbolic victory it's very important. LibDems will hopefully exploit it.
Oh absolutely. First time I've woken up to good news all year.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Or there would never be any long-term planning because no government could ever risk short term costs for long-term gain. It would be permanent institutional paralysis.
So what we have now, but faster.
Um, it's their main story and the numbers are in the article covering it? Which site are you looking at? ;-)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked