-
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
Just checked on my mobile and you're right. I think it thinks I'm in the States, which might explain the proliferation of Trump stories over the last few months. Either that or I have my location set to Purgatory.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think they got slated for their views, they got slated because their party was in such a terrible state. Whilst this is clearly a good morning for them, I also think that's still true.
Huw_Dawson
Member
How I feel this morning:
I do wonder how this could shift the make-up of Parliament. If we compare this to how the main voting issue for people in Scotland becomes independence versus unionism (if there is such a term), leading to Labour and the Lib Dems getting wiped out, the Tories actually having something of a showing, and the SNP becoming the third largest party in Westminster overnight (also stemming from a referendum) what does this mean?
It's unlikely that every Remain constituency becomes Lib Dem and every Leave constituency becomes Tory, but it will definitely sway things heavily.
Could Labour lose, say, London to the Lib Dems?
Does Leave or Remain become a non-issue once Article 50 is activated and people resign themselves to the reality of Brexit or does it become an even more significant factor as the consequences become more visible?
Where does Labour's line of "The Tories have no plan and their Brexit would be an unqualified catastrophe for the country - but of course we'll vote for it unconditionally" leave them? Without their deposit?
It's unlikely that every Remain constituency becomes Lib Dem and every Leave constituency becomes Tory, but it will definitely sway things heavily.
Could Labour lose, say, London to the Lib Dems?
Does Leave or Remain become a non-issue once Article 50 is activated and people resign themselves to the reality of Brexit or does it become an even more significant factor as the consequences become more visible?
Where does Labour's line of "The Tories have no plan and their Brexit would be an unqualified catastrophe for the country - but of course we'll vote for it unconditionally" leave them? Without their deposit?
CyclopsRock
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if voting for A50 becomes the next decades "You voted for Iraq!" Ie important to a relatively small gang of people whilst the rest care about the economy, education and the NHS like they always do.
killer_clank
Member
Labour are the people who need to be most afraid of this result, definitely. They offer nothing to remainers which most labour voters are with their crap "yeah brexit sucks but we'll vote it all through no questions asked" at the same time not appealing to leavers in the slightest. A pathetic party. This indecision about how to handle brexit directly stems from the Labour establishment and staff being overwhelmingly remain but Corbyn and McDonnell being not so secret Brexiteers. They're increasingly doomed in England in the same way they're doomed in Scotland.
CyclopsRock
Member
The Lib Dems have a decent chance of catching people like me, I think, but it totally depends on their economic policies. I don't want an old-school Tory government, but I don't want socialist-lite Lib Dems either. Oh, I miss the coalition days...
The lib Dems are pushing an interesting line - a third of Tory leave voters backed them in the by-election. Not sure where they are getting that number from, but if it's true it does actually suggest this by-election will have a big impact, because they campaigned against a 'hard brexit'.
JonnyDBrit
Member
At the very least, it brings them back into the political spotlight for the first time in a long time, and they do need to capitalise on it.
Though one interesting factor to consider is the sheer decrease in overall turnout, compared to the election last year. In previous elections, its been at over 70%, while for this its a little over 53%. Part of that's undoubtedly going to be just down to the fact of a non-election year, but does also make me suspect its a victory as much about Conservatives staying home as it is Liberals making gains.
Huw_Dawson
Member
It's December, and sodding freezing outside. Turnouts are always terrible this month.
This is a good point. We need to actually be the centre-left alternative - the party of Ashdown and Kennedy. Farron's an interesting leader to do this, as he's instinctively on the left of the party, but he's attempting to set a centre-left "early-Blair-with-more-genuine-reform-intentions" tone. Clegg was an Orange Booker - a term used for the modern centre-right wing of the party, which dominated the leadership during the coalition.
I'm super happy for the Richmond party and everyone who helped out. This is the best day to be a Lib Dem since Cleggmania.
I've said all along that we'd bounce back from 2015. I'm happy that we have.
We're going to bounce by several points, probably to above UKIP, in GE polls. My suspicion is that most of that will be London centre-left people remembering we exist.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Fair point, though the Witney by-election saw a similar fall.
But yeah, should hopefully provide a boost for the Lib Dems since it both provides publicity for them both as the party of the Remain vote, but also a party in recovery, rather than facing a sharp decline as they were last year (and in comparison to certain other parties atm).
31GhostsIV
Banned
I always thought this thread was ToryGAF in all but name.
I wonder if a Lib Dem/Green coalition stands a chance in todays political climate? Of course, everyone would roll their eyes and say this has no chance, meanwhile UKIP & Farage seems to get endless media presence for some reason.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I'd quite happily vote libdem if I was in a place where it would do any good. Very glad they won the byelection, that's one more vote against brexit and makes May's majority slightly slimmer (not that many labour mp's will actually show spine and vote against it).
Strategically it makes sense for me to vote Labour right now in my constituency though.
Strategically it makes sense for me to vote Labour right now in my constituency though.
31GhostsIV
Banned
Opposite for me (Wells constituency), We had a Lib Dem MP during coalition but for the majority of my life (including now) it's been Tory. Labour is a wasted vote here.
I'd go Lib Dem right now for the opposition to the Snooper's Charter (as well as Brexit). There seems to be this weird pattern that any issue I oppose the Tories doing, Labour seems to just shrug at. Apart from the NHS maybe.
I've heard murmurings that UKIP get so many bookings on TV - e.g. Farage's weekly BBC Breakfast interview and his semi-permanent chair on Question Time - simply because they're so easy to book, they rarely go off-script and they're simple to work with, which is something that can't be said for prominent members of, say, The Green Party.
31GhostsIV
Banned
That doesn't make much sense. Is the BBC more scared of a politician discussing the environment than Farage & Co's jingoistic ramblings?
"Uh oh! She's mentioning polar ice caps melting! Quick, redirect the discussion to muslims and immigrants!"
Also, in a week where the Snooper's Charter should have been everywhere, the Guardian thought I'd rather read about Paul Nuttall and the UKIPs for some reason.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I could believe that when Natalie Bennett was leader.
Caroline Lucas was always a good interview but I'm not sure Bennett ever had one that wasn't a mess.
Did they got back to double leaders or something? I haven't kept track
Caroline Lucas was always a good interview but I'm not sure Bennett ever had one that wasn't a mess.
Did they got back to double leaders or something? I haven't kept track
Huw_Dawson
Member
Yeah, it's a return to their old concept of not really having a leader. I think the way it works is that Lucas is the face and there's another person with the same authority as her who helps run the party, but I can't recall his name.
EDIT: Hangabout, it's due to Lucas' co-leader having a disabled son who he cares for part-time, I think. Lucas didn't want to lead the party again, but she's understood to be the best person to act as the Farage of the party - the recognisable front man.
Yep, best morning of 2016 so far.
The Lib Dems could make some hay off the back of this, especially if it signals the coalition stink fading in the eyes (noses?) of Labour voters.
PJV3
Member
They should have let it go with the change of leadership, I doubt the party will make the same naive mistakes that Clegg made again.
If Brexit becomes the main voting issue, then Labour as they currently stand are in trouble. The Tories not having a plan has been good for them, as they've not got a plan either.
Labour could and should table amendments to any eventual Brexit bill that set out what they believe the aims of the negotiations should be. Set some economic tests, or whatever, and refuse to back the deal if those conditions aren't met. Problem there is that May could just call a general election at the hint of Parliament not being willing to play ball, and Labour would then lose a load of seats to UKIP.
Carpe Carnim
Member
Pardon my ignorant, lurking American arse, but what does "losing their deposit" mean in reference to a political party?
CyclopsRock
Member
Surely the simpler answer is that people are more interested in UKIP? Whether they love them or hate them, they generate a response. The Lib Dems are the political equivalent of skimmed milk.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Literally losing their deposit. They had to pay £500 to run, and having failed to get a substantial portion of the vote, they don't get that back.
ultratruman
Banned
In order to compete in an election, you need to put up a deposit (I think it's usually around £500) that shows you are serious. You lose this money if you get below 5% in the polls.
This is to stop any random time-waster from getting on the ballot. It's not meant to affect real political parties.
The Friendly Monster
Member
Good for you?
To stand for election you have to put up £500 pounds, which you get back if you get over 5% of the vote. If you don't get 5% you don't get it back. Originally, it was to stop the masses from standing against the right sort but now it's just a tidy up function to prevent too many candidates.
You need to pay a deposit to stand in an election. It's not a huge amount (£500), but it's there to stop an endless list of joke candidates. You get the deposit back if you get above a certain number of votes.
For Labour to lose their deposit is a big thing here. No-one expected them to win, but they have done worse than thought - it's worth noting Labour has more membership party members in Richmond than votes. It shows that Labour london stronghold isn't so safe, and that Labour voters can be persuaded to switch to lib Dems to beat the tories and kickback against Brexit.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Yeah. The deposit basically is a barrier against timewasters running. Some still will but most won't want to lose the money.
CyclopsRock
Member
I believe the threshold is 5% of the vote. In theory it's to stop joke candidates I think, but £500 isn't that much. That said, the Lib Dems lost £170,000 in lost deposits in 2015 (the greens lost £220,000!)
CyclopsRock
Member
Uhhh what? There was a discussion asking why UKIP get so much more media attention than the Lib Dems, and some were suggesting it's due to how easy they are to book. I think the answer is simpler, which is that they're more interesting to viewers/listeners/readers.
The Friendly Monster
Member
I meant skimmed milk is good for you while not being particularly tempting.
It used to be a lot more comparatively to the point it was a massive burden on the pseudo-democracy we have in the UK. In 1918 it was £150, that's about £7000 in todays money, but inflation gradually decreased that until it was reset to £500 in 1985.
Carpe Carnim
Member
Thanks to everyone above who explained that. We have filing fees to run for office here in the US, but thousands of dollars lost, win or lose, doesn't stop our joke candidates from running.
*paging Dr. WiFi. Please pick-up the white courtesy phone*
So the £500 is per candidate, and generally covered by the party, rather than individually I assume?
CyclopsRock
Member
I meant skimmed milk is good for you while not being particularly tempting.
Oh, ahaha!
Actually, maybe my metaphor was more apt than I thought....
CyclopsRock
Member
It's only usually paid for by individuals if it's a very new or small party with no real infrastructure and some guy's like "Hey, I'll run in Sutton and Cheam!" and the nearest party office is 100 miles away. Otherwise, yeah, it'll be paid for by the party.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Which is itself about £1450 in today's money. You could have bought a NES and a few games with that the next year!
Huw_Dawson
Member
The Lib Dem deposits are paid for out of a fund managed by the National Liberal Club, btw. Themoreyouknow.jpeg
I'm very curious to see the next few polls, mostly for how badly this is going to damage Labour.
I hope the Greens continue to be pragmatic - a Green-LD understanding would be very helpful in any future tight election. But it's also unfair to expect an independent (and much more left-wing) party to not actually attempt to do politics.
I'm very curious to see the next few polls, mostly for how badly this is going to damage Labour.
I hope the Greens continue to be pragmatic - a Green-LD understanding would be very helpful in any future tight election. But it's also unfair to expect an independent (and much more left-wing) party to not actually attempt to do politics.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, the Liberal Democrats are just not going to do significant damage, in terms of seats, to Labour. I know it's the current trendy media message, but the maths is not there. I mean, look at it this way. This was a by-election in a former Lib Dem swing seat never before held by Labour that was the fourth heaviest Remain constituency in the country against a Brexit MP only tacitly supported by an official party. The Lib Dems will just not do better than this; this showcases what they can do under the absolute best case scenario. I think we can all agree on that?
Okay, so if we are agreed on that, let's do the maths. Suppose that the Lib Dems managed 21.75% swings against every single Labour seat contested in 2015, which is ridiculously implausible as it is, because as we've discussed, this was an absolutely outstanding Lib Dem performance that owed a huge amount to the specific circumstances surrounding it. Do you know how many Labour seats the Lib Dems would win if they replicated this swing against Labour? It's 8. 8 seats. Now, that's all well and good for the Liberal Democrats - that nearly doubles their current count - but at the end of the day, they're still not relevant if they have 17 seats. That's still a quarter of what the SNP has. Labour will still be the opposition, and even worse, the practical effect of the Liberal Democrats eating so much of the Labour vote will be to hand other Labour seats to the Conservatives. That's bad for the Lib Dems, because even if Labour is... well, not pro-Brexit, but not anti-Brexit either, they're still vastly better than Conservative MPs in terms of delivering the kind of end-game the Liberal Democrats want.
In other words, not only will the Lib Dems just not become relevant by trying to attack Labour, they'll also damage their own causes. It just doesn't take the party anywhere, and I think Farron is a bit stupid for trying, in all honesty. What the Lib Dems don't want to be doing is attacking Labour. They want to be attacking the Conservatives. Do you know how many seats the Lib Dems would take if they replicated this swing against the Conservatives instead of Labour? 27. It's nearly three times as profitable as attacking Labour! Additionally, even where the Lib Dems don't win, they'll help reduce the Conservative vote, and put in Labour MPs, which gives a better Brexit settlement than Conservative MPs would give.
This animosity on the left is just stupid. We're cannibalising an increasingly small pool of voters and achieving absolutely nothing of any use. The Liberal Democrats greatest policy achievements didn't come when they were in government. They came about in 1997, because most of New Labour's early legislation was enormously Liberal Democrat influenced. The Liberal Democrats helped draft the Devolution Bills, the Minimum Wage Bill, the Human Rights Act, and so on, all as part of the (public) Cook-Maclennan policy forum between the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Blair and Ashdown privately agreed not to spend enormous resources chasing each other in marginals where they could take out the Tories - and that was an absolutely critical part of (for example) the Portillo moment. If it hadn't been for Prescott's obstinancy, we'd even be under an AV+ Parliament right now.
I'm just so done with all this in-fighting. I'd have voted Liberal Democrat in Richmond - most Labour voters would, and we know because they did! Most Labour members I know are absolutely desperate for co-operation and vitally convinced of the need for PR. It's time for the Liberal Democrats to return the favour, and I really hope Farron stops being such a bloody pillock. Focus your fire on the Conservatives! I can't believe both parties have spent three odd decades co-existing under an FPTP system and not realized this.
Okay, so if we are agreed on that, let's do the maths. Suppose that the Lib Dems managed 21.75% swings against every single Labour seat contested in 2015, which is ridiculously implausible as it is, because as we've discussed, this was an absolutely outstanding Lib Dem performance that owed a huge amount to the specific circumstances surrounding it. Do you know how many Labour seats the Lib Dems would win if they replicated this swing against Labour? It's 8. 8 seats. Now, that's all well and good for the Liberal Democrats - that nearly doubles their current count - but at the end of the day, they're still not relevant if they have 17 seats. That's still a quarter of what the SNP has. Labour will still be the opposition, and even worse, the practical effect of the Liberal Democrats eating so much of the Labour vote will be to hand other Labour seats to the Conservatives. That's bad for the Lib Dems, because even if Labour is... well, not pro-Brexit, but not anti-Brexit either, they're still vastly better than Conservative MPs in terms of delivering the kind of end-game the Liberal Democrats want.
In other words, not only will the Lib Dems just not become relevant by trying to attack Labour, they'll also damage their own causes. It just doesn't take the party anywhere, and I think Farron is a bit stupid for trying, in all honesty. What the Lib Dems don't want to be doing is attacking Labour. They want to be attacking the Conservatives. Do you know how many seats the Lib Dems would take if they replicated this swing against the Conservatives instead of Labour? 27. It's nearly three times as profitable as attacking Labour! Additionally, even where the Lib Dems don't win, they'll help reduce the Conservative vote, and put in Labour MPs, which gives a better Brexit settlement than Conservative MPs would give.
This animosity on the left is just stupid. We're cannibalising an increasingly small pool of voters and achieving absolutely nothing of any use. The Liberal Democrats greatest policy achievements didn't come when they were in government. They came about in 1997, because most of New Labour's early legislation was enormously Liberal Democrat influenced. The Liberal Democrats helped draft the Devolution Bills, the Minimum Wage Bill, the Human Rights Act, and so on, all as part of the (public) Cook-Maclennan policy forum between the Liberal Democrats and Labour. Blair and Ashdown privately agreed not to spend enormous resources chasing each other in marginals where they could take out the Tories - and that was an absolutely critical part of (for example) the Portillo moment. If it hadn't been for Prescott's obstinancy, we'd even be under an AV+ Parliament right now.
I'm just so done with all this in-fighting. I'd have voted Liberal Democrat in Richmond - most Labour voters would, and we know because they did! Most Labour members I know are absolutely desperate for co-operation and vitally convinced of the need for PR. It's time for the Liberal Democrats to return the favour, and I really hope Farron stops being such a bloody pillock. Focus your fire on the Conservatives! I can't believe both parties have spent three odd decades co-existing under an FPTP system and not realized this.
31GhostsIV
Banned
Sir Edward Heath, proving once again that it's government that should be spied on and not the general populace:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...th-child-abuse-investigation-not-a-witch-hunt
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...th-child-abuse-investigation-not-a-witch-hunt
Crab, the lib Dems main point from today was attacking the tories not Labour. The 'a third of Tory Brexit voters switched' was the main headline from him. I would also point out that it was Labour who went down this stupid road of tribalism - the number of party activists I know who are utterly furious the party even stood a candidate is shocking. Elected Labour hatred of the lib Dems is very much a one way street, and I've never understood it but it's undeniable (I know numerous Labour politicians who hate the lib Dems more than the tories).
I think if anything what Faron is trying to do is push Labour to clarify and actually adopt a soft Brexit / referendum stance. He's not a moron, he knows they aren't going to get a tidal wave off this. But if he can get enough pressure on Corbyn to actually fucking do his job for once and establish a clear position on Europe for the party then it helps the lib Dems considerably in their main goal of not leaving Europe. It also opens a lot more doors for party pacts like we saw in this election between the greens, the women's party and the lib Dems.
I think if anything what Faron is trying to do is push Labour to clarify and actually adopt a soft Brexit / referendum stance. He's not a moron, he knows they aren't going to get a tidal wave off this. But if he can get enough pressure on Corbyn to actually fucking do his job for once and establish a clear position on Europe for the party then it helps the lib Dems considerably in their main goal of not leaving Europe. It also opens a lot more doors for party pacts like we saw in this election between the greens, the women's party and the lib Dems.
31GhostsIV
Banned
Isn't this Trump syndrome though? Basically rewarding controversy (at best) and racism/sexism/fascism at worst?
Also (and this is as someone against the licence fee, at least in its current incarnation) the BBC is meant to be impartial? So why all the free coverage whenever UKIP opens their mouths?
CyclopsRock
Member
Well, firstly it's only a reward if the things you say actually help you. And I don't think putting Farage on Question Time can really be considered "rewarding fascism".
Secondly, the BBC is meant to be impartial, but what are you suggestion they do instead? UKIP won the last European Parliament election, UKIP got a million and a half more votes than the LDs at the last election and it's only a quirk of our electoral system that means they aren't the third largest party in Westminster. I don't think you can come at the problem with the approach that the BBC should be impartial and come out with the conclusion that the Lib Dems are somehow hard done by for representation given their 8 (now 9) MPs and less than 8% of the national vote. You could combine the Lib Dems and Green's votes and they'd still come out behind UKIP.
Huw_Dawson
Member
This is a good point! But it's also not how Liberal Democrats campaign.
Lib Dem campaigns are heavily focused and targeted. Local parties work their own patches, but at GE time the regions band together to focus on high-priority seats, either to gain or defend.
The national party, lead by Farron, puts out a manifesto, goes on the TV box and does their thing. The actual (and extremely professional - we're probably the best actual political unit in Britain) party tightly locks down a plan, and guns it in areas we have set up to make attempts for over the past prior five years or so.
That's why Richmond Park was a perfect storm. Not just because it was a former LD voting seat and heavily remain - because we had so much prior warning about this campaign that we were extremely prepared to fight it.
We'd never get a universal swing in all Labour seats. We'd instead get concentrated major swings, buoyed by the national party doing well.
Localism is VERY important to our strategy. We don't care if we come a distant second in a few more seats than we did last time. We care about having sitting MPs, backed up by lots of sitting councillors. This strategy has been proven to work, in contrast with the opposing strategy of just focusing on national polling numbers that got UKIP absolutely nowhere.
The real story in Richmond is that this strategy, and all its associated literature, organisation and technology, worked. And that SHOULD terrify Labour and Tory parties across the country, because many of those parties will remember how damn good we got at campaigning, and how that almost - almost - caused a sensational win for Clegg in 2010.
Sure, Richmond won't change the world. But it's a sign that the tide has turned. We're back.
But the Lib Dems had five seats fewer in 2010 than in 2005. As memory serves, and not to be a prick, but it was Clegg's profile suddenly and violently being boosted by the televised debates that gave the Lib Dems a perceived boost to their momentum - and, again, that translated to a 1% increase in the national vote and five fewer seats.
The best case scenario I see for the next general election is the Lib Dems as kingmakers again, as Labour outdo expectations to cling on to a good chunk of their seats. The Tories will remain in power, one way or another. I appreciate that even this scenario is hugely optimistic.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked