[Closed] 2019 General Election

Any NHS workers in the house?

Seems the Gov are trying to impose Purdah regs on NHS workers. Some of my wife’s colleagues have been asked to remove some pretty innocent tweets about a recent wounds conference, completely unpolitical other than some references to increased need for services.

NHS staff have to behave as professionals at all times. You must not do anything even in your time out of work to bring the profession into disrepute ( professionally registered staff ) My guess would be that this is just them being reminded of that Social media policy is quite tight.

Perhaps with some over zealous manager adding to it / takin git too far. they can refuse expecially if they believe it is withing the social media policy

for example " the NHS needs more funding and staff" should be OK " my unit is always shortstaffed" is not ( by my understanding)

I'd be asking the person pushing this for why and ask to see the policy that allows the manager to ask for the tweets to be removed.

We normally get a reminder about social media policy and making overt political statements around the time of any election. Not had one yet but I do remember getting one during the two referenda

I need to register to vote as I’m out of the UK. Where does my vote go/get counted? The last place I was registered in the UK?

Exactly. You’ll need to confirm when you left the UK and how you want to vote (postal or proxy mainly)

Question for the various experts here – how should I vote? I don’t want people to debate my views (they’re not perfect, but they’re mine) – just advice on which way to vote and why.
If I had to rank my personal priorities they would be:
– Stop Brexit/ at least keep the UK in the common market.
– Kick out the Tories, and associated racist populists.
– Prevent mass nationalisation and appropriation of listed companies, private schools etc
– Avoid electing anti-semitic and/or racist populists to power, it’ll only encourage them.

Logic would probably suggest Lib Dems – they’re not openly in favour of mass nationalisation, and they’re not the Tories. But they won’t win a majority, and there’s a real risk of splitting the anti-racist populist vote.
The other option is Labour, but if they get a majority to start pushing through their more radical plans, the whole country’s going to hell in a handcart, with large companies fleeing, government debt rocketing (energy companies don’t come cheap), etc.

So, what do you suggest and why?

You sound like you're in the same boat as me. I guess it depends on your constituency: if the Lib Dems have a chance of winning the seat then you're probably best off voting for them; if they're too far behind to win then I'd say that any party that's closest and isn't UKIP or BP is going to be your only choice.

JP

So, what do you suggest and why?

Depends on your constituency

If a Labour Tory marginal, then Labour, if lib dems or even green in with a shout them to for them

realistically best we can hope for a Labour/lib dem coalition so whatever works

It’s a comparison between regions back in 2017 and currently.

Yes… Labour’s actions since 2017 have turned away lots of voters. Especially as they took their votes as “a vote for Brexit” when all polling said that the opposite was the case; people who voted Labour overwhelming wanted Brexit stopped. No surprise there. BUT, the polls are comparing the 2017 Election Day with 2019 before the election campaign really gets going… Labour won a lot of people over during the 2017 campaign, and hopefully will do so again this time.

If those polls above are right then all but a tiny few of us are f*****! And we’ll deserve it.

Things can change, but this election will be about damage limitation for Labour, if they can get close to their 2017 seat count, they’ll be doing well. We are reliant on Labour bouncing in the polls back towards 2017 Election Day levels AND the other opposition parties taking far more Tory seats than they currently look to be heading for.

Currently, Labour do not seem to understand what the game is… get enough MPs from all the other parties to block a Johnson government. SNP seem to really get it, from the way they are taking, as do those parties stepping aside in some England & Wales seats for parties they have little in common with other than stopping Brexit and Johnson.

Just catching up on the thread. The polling posted above which shows Tories with big majority is at odds with the betting sites. SkyBet have Tories at 321 with just worse than evens for a majority.

I've no idea how all this would land but even the simple national Westminster voting intentions are all the place so any breakdown at constituency level is virtually impossible

How odd that YouGov polls are so optimistic regarding the Tories and so pessimistic regarding Labour, it's almost as if there is some motive behind the quality of their polling.

Oh hang on, wasn't YouGov started up by Stephan Shakespeare, former owner of ConservativeHome and Nadhim Zahawi (who needs no introduction really), slumlord and Tory?

You couldn't make it up. Oh wait you can.

Whatever these bad early polls for Labour in the last election worked in their favour, through the course of the campaign they closed the polls which put more pressure on the Tories.

I was about to say the same ctk … I have no idea why YouGuv rigging their polling (they don’t, this is just blame the messenger syndrome) to show a Tory lead helps the Tories… it should help to get people involved in the opposition campaigns and get people out to vote as things swing away form the Tories as the campaign goes on. Hopefully it will also focus minds on stopping Johnson.

I have no idea why YouGuv rigging their polling (they don’t, this is just blame the messenger syndrome) to show a Tory lead helps the Tories…

Back-a-winner syndrome. Have you ever wondered why big football clubs acquire so many extra supporters from outside the local area? And why Trump's perceived 'success' in business is so appealing to certain US voters?

Also, if Labour are well behind in the polls, it doesn't always galvanize supporters, for many it will de-motivate them - 'what's the point of even voting?' etc.

Anybody just anybody but bullsh1tboris and I don't care if I have to hold my nose but working in engineering and manufacturing has taught me these guys don't give a toss about this sector.

This is my only post on the subject this is a mtb group after all 😉

JeZ

On the idea that labour would not join a progressive or anti brexit / anti tory alliance

Its very politically difficult for them to do so and Swinson was totally dishonest about the idea making demands that she knew would be impossible for labour. she just didn't want them joining so she laid out preconditions that she knew were unacceptable to labour

Compare Sturgeons reactions to Swinsons. Then decide who was being genuine and who was playing games

Sturgeon has been speaking very well about what might happen post election.

Swinson has been working to try and increase the number of non-Tory MPs, even where those MPs are not from her own party.

Corbyn has been working for a Labour majority or bust, leaving it ‘till after the election to address and deal with reality.

Swinson deliberately ( IMO) made it impossible to have a pre election pact with labour

Sturgeon ( about a pre election pact / joint action in parliament) said ( I paraphrase) " I do not think much of Corbyn but I will do whatever I can to stop brexit so if that means working with Corbyn I will". Swinson said. "I will not do any deal while corbyn is leader".

Thats the difference.

After the Tories made cuts to education would you trust Gove and BoJo?

Hell no.

Yes TJ, Sturgeon has spoken very well about what should happen post election, the other opposition parties (other than Labour) have, despite huge policy and personality differences, managed to come to an electoral agreement to get a few more non-Tory MPs (hopefully). Labour is just throwing shit at the SNP and all the other opposition parties… and keep ruling out cooperation that we all know might be needed after an election, and haven’t worked towards the election of a single non Labour non Tory MP in a single seat. Greens, SNP, PC & LibDems are talking about, and dealing with, the reality of stopping Brexit and stopping Johnson. Labour are refighting the 2017 election, and hoping not to lose seats, while talking up, and only talking about, a majority Labour government that is just not going to happen.

Labour are refighting the 2017 election, and hoping not to lose seats, while talking up, and only talking about, a majority Labour government that is just not going to happen.

You want them to campaign to lose? The simple fact is that labour are the only party who can unseat the tories. The only way they can do that is with a positive campaign. The minute they start helping other parties, they guarantee that they lose.

The simple fact is that labour are the only party who can unseat the tories.

See, this is nonsense. There will not be a Labour majority this time, the only way to unseat the Tory government is to unseat Tory MPs everywhere it is remotely possible, which will require lots of parties winning seats off of them, not just the Labour Party. Ignoring this is the mistake Labour are making, and why a Tory majority is too likely for comfort. The SNP need to take seats off the Tories. The LibDems need to take seats off the Tories. PC & the Greens need to at least keep their seats, and ideally grab one or two more off of the Tories.

Kelvin - the lib dems simply have not done so. They have placed conditions on any co operation with labour that are impossible for labour to agree. IMO this was done deliberately to attempt to give the lib dems the high moral ground. Well it ain't fooled me

The pact with the greens and PC is very one way only working in the lib dems favour and is also highly hypocritical as they will work with PC in wales but refused to work with SNP in Scotland because the SNP want independence. Well what do PC want?

Also the position on referenda is hypocritical in supporting a second EU one but not a second scots one.

For a tory majority the tores are going to have to make 30 gains or therabouts to make up for their lack of majority and the likely loses.

Just to be clear, Labour policy is not 'mass nationalisation'. Just nationalising a few essential services, like we have now e.g. health, police and fire service, which makes sense.

Okay… simple question… why won’t Labour stand aside for any Green candidates? Greens have stood aside for Labour in some seats, and some other parties have stood aside for the Greens in other seats. Labour…?

Whilst I don't agree with Swinsons tactics, and I don't like Swinson in general anyway, you can't put this all on the lib dems, corbyn is just as bad as her in this respect, they are both putting themselves before party and country.

If the tories get back in, that'll be on both of them for being totally pig headed.

why won’t Labour stand aside for any Green candidates?

What seats, specifically, are you thinking off that it would make sense.
Aside from Brighton Pavilion where is the Green party the best bet?

I have no idea why YouGuv rigging their polling (they don’t, this is just blame the messenger syndrome)

+1

I'd guess these guys don't sit down with a spreadsheet themsleves, they hire people in.

So they sit in an interview and say "Before we employ you we need to know you're willing to add X% onto our favoured party."? In which case don't all the guys who failed to get the job go straight to the press?

Or do they not mention it at the interview but new hires get told on day 1, "you need to add X% onto our favoured party, we know this will make you look incompetent and harm your own future in the Polling so thanks" in which case how come none of them ever walk out then and there and go to the media? Or why don't they (more likely) go to the media and cash in on a massive story when they change jobs?

Like many conspiracy theories, it requires an implausible amount of cooperation from a lot of people.

Moreover the political parties clearly trust the polls as the best estimates available - their campaign strategies prove that. If sootyandjim is aware of shenanigans why aren't the people who rely on these polls for accurate data?

Gotta love conspiracy theories.

Oh hang on, wasn’t YouGov started up by Stephan Shakespeare

Bloody hell, It's a shit time when we're only days into the campaign, and Labour supporters have already started on the "blame others" storylines to make themselves feel better

All the recent Yougov poll dismay and the aggregate tracker tells a different story...

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1193155302172119040?s=09

Bleak stuff: Moodys downgrades uk's credit outlook.

Moody's said neither of the main political parties in next month's election were likely to tackle high borrowing levels which Brexit had made even harder to fix

The ratings agency said: "It would be optimistic to assume that the previously cohesive, predictable approach to legislation and policymaking in the UK will return once Brexit is no longer a contentious issue, however that is achieved."

https://news.sky.com/story/moodys-downgrades-uks-credit-outlook-after-brexit-paralysis-11857899

Whoever wins, we'll be overspending and badly governed. Joy.

On the polling - its not about adding a % on its about the questions asked and how they weight the responses. certain pollsters always predict higher tory votes than others

its not about adding a % on its about the questions asked

Ok, second version of my post as follows:

I’d guess these guys don’t sit down with a spreadsheet themsleves, they hire people in.

Gotta love conspiracy theories.

kelvin

Subscriber

Okay… simple question… why won’t Labour stand aside for any Green candidates? Greens have stood aside for Labour in some seats, and some other parties have stood aside for the Greens in other seats. Labour…?

The greens got an average of 2.2% in seats they stood in last time. First 3 examples I looked at the Lib Dems have stood aside for the greens in Bury St Edmonds- where they took 5.7% of the vote last time, in Brighton Pavillion where they didn't run at all last time but took 2.8% in 2015, and in the Isle of Wight where they took 3.7%. So what has it actually cost either party to stand aside?

I don't know of any seats where you get any sort of equivalence for Labour and the Greens. Can you suggest any? The greens lost their deposits in all but 9 seats last time, and unless I've missed on Brighton Pavillion is the only seat they really have any chance this time.

On the polling – its not about adding a % on its about the questions asked and how they weight the responses. certain pollsters always predict higher tory votes than others

As previously discussed, polling in FPTP systems is more art than science - certain demographic groups are tough to get data on, for example. As a result, every polling company has to apply its own secret sauce to the raw figures to arrive at a best estimate of the election result. Different companies have different secret sauces, basically, applying different weights, quotas etc.

I’ve missed on Brighton Pavillion is the only seat they really have any chance this time.

Are Labour standing a candidate there, risking the Conservatives gaining a seat?

See, here’s the thing, there are lots more seats where the Greens (or other opposition candidates) could step aside to help Labour stop the seat going to Johnson’s party, and they probably would, if Labour would just throw them a bone and stand aside in one or two seats. It is an arrangement that would overwhelming help Labour far more than the Greens, and keep a few more Tory MPs out of the commons. But Labour won’t.

kelvin

Subscriber

Are Labour standing a candidate there, risking the Conservatives gaining a seat?

No, the Greens took 52% of the vote there in 2017 and 41% in 2015- the Tories with about 20%. Their wildest hope is to turn their distant third into a distant second- which is exactly what you're asking Labour to give them without a fight.

So sure, they could make a pointless empty gesture. Would anyone be impressed? What would that "bone" be worth to the Greens? Nothing- so ask yourself why would it earn their support elsewhere? And if that support can be won with a pointless gesture, why withhold it at all? The only people to actually gain a thing would be the Tories and the only people to lose would be Labour themselves.

All due respect but I think you've been suckered in by the Lib Dem/Green deckchair moving policy. And I don't think you'd be so easily impressed with the same empty gestures from Labour.

Labour and the Lib Dems desperately need to be working together, and both need to be working with the SNP... But neither have any interest in doing any of these things.

See, here’s the thing, there are lots more seats where the Greens (or other opposition candidates) could step aside to help Labour stop the seat going to Johnson’s party, and they probably would, if Labour would just throw them a bone and stand aside in one or two seats. It is an arrangement that would overwhelming help Labour far more than the Greens, and keep a few more Tory MPs out of the commons. But Labour won’t.

Absolutely this.

Labour are far too arrogant for thier own good, just look at posts from Dazh and Tj for that.

Until labour start being progressive and cooperative, they are stuffed.

The recent polls show we'll still have a hung parliament so someone's going to have to work with someone.

Not a formal coalition per se, but an agreement on certain topics like brexit.

Sooner or later the children in government are going to have to learn how to share thier toys.
Most children learn this by the age of 3.

Labour would have done it indeed started the process. Swinson put demands on them that she must have known they could not and would not meet.

Now I have said for ages and indeed on this thread that I want a progressive alliance for one election on a platform of second referendum and constitutional reform. So I personally am in favour of it.

Swinson simply wanted it to look like she wanted it but she knows any co operation with labour would cost her in her drive for tory seats. So she deliberately sabotaged any chance of getting co operation with labour

Note also Swinson categorically ruled out any deal with the SNP because they are nationalists but will work with PC even tho they are nationalists.

Labour are far too arrogant for thier own good, just look at posts from Dazh and Tj for that.

?

I'll repeat my question above. Do you think labour should campaign to lose? Because by planning for a hung parliament and making deals in advance of one does exactly that.

even tho they are nationalists

Indeed… lots of opposition parties have had to work with other parties they disagree with on huge issues. The idea that it is Swinson stopping Labour working with all the other parties is amusing… Labour are gunning for all the other opposition parties, not just the LibDems. It is a sense of entitlement that it might take 10 years of Johnson and his damaging Brexit to change.

Labour would have done it indeed started the process.

Lol, corbyn would never have the numbers.

That was Swinsons point, and it still stands.

We're headed for a hung parliament and unless corbyn starts playing ball...

I was curious so I kept looking at seats. TL;DR- Unite To Remain is a joke wherever they're running a Green.

GREENS RUN UNOPPOSED IN ENGLAND

Brighton Pavillion- Greens have huge majority, Lib Dems didn't run last time and lost deposit the time before. No change.

Isle of Wight- will be Tory regardless. Lib Dems lost their deposit last time. No change.

Bristol West- Held by a Labour remainer with a huge majority, realistically will stay Labour, greens and lib dems combined might beat the Tories for 2nd. No change.

Bury St Edmonds- will be Tory, Greens barely kept deposit last time, Lib Dems lost theirs. No change

Stroud. Holy shit, Stroud. A seat where it's a straight two horse race between Labour and the Tories, and where a Labour remainer won with a 600 seat margin last time. Both Lib Dems and Greens lost deposit. UTR candidate has no chance of winning, but if they take just a few percent of the voter share from Labour that's a remain seat that switches to a Tory hard brexiteer and Boris disciple. Only possible change is negative.

Dulwich- Huge Labour majority, they will keep it.Weirdly the greens lost their deposit last time and the Lib Dems (just) kept theirs. No change.

Forest of Dean. Tory as ****, excellent riding. Both lost their deposits. Just conceivably could go Labour, but probably not. Unite have no chance at all. Probably no change.

Cannock Chase. Noticing a theme here. Both lost their deposits, greens could combine all those votes and still lose deposit. Like FOD, is probably going to stay Tory, the combined votes of Labour Lib Dems and Greens would bring it into play but still be an outsider. Less good riding. Probably no change.

Exeter. Pretty safe Labour, both lost deposit, Greens run unopposed despite being the smaller party and again will lose deposit even if it keeps all Green and Lib Dem votes. No change.

So, Lib Dems, what will you gain? What have you given up? What are you risking?

In 6 of the 9, they lost their deposit or didn't bother to run last time. In none of the nine is there any chance of gaining a Unite To Remain seat. In 2, it's probably Tory regardless but Labour would have at least some chance, UTR have none. And in one, they're risking replacing a Labour remainer with a Tory hard brexiteer.

Neither Lib Dems or Greens can gain anything except for saving a few quid on lost deposits

I'll do the same for the Lib Dems but that'll take longer. Wales is trickier, and I don't really have a good understanding of Welsh politics

Anyone watched the documentary series on the troubles in Northern Ireland on iplayer? ... That's a real eye opener, all sides were wrong. There weren't any sides anyway when you think about it, it was a massive **** up...

Vote careful.

Kelvin - so why will Swinson work with PC but not with SNP?

Where is the logic?

I did not say Swinson stopped labour from joining a remain alliance. What I am saying is that she placed impossible conditions on joining a remain alliance with labour. Conditions she placed on no other party and conditions that she must have known labour could not meet.

OK, Wales. Caveat, like I say I'm not good with Welsh politics but here's the numbers game. I don't know which seats are remain or leave and can't be arsed to find out.

TL;DR- Greens irrelevant, Lib Dems give up nothing and gain practically nothing, PC possibly benefit against Labour, UTR really mostly irrelevant and only really against Labour. Tories probably don't care about any of it. Mostly just highlights Lib Dem hypocrisy over nationalist parties.

WALES!

Vale of Glamorgan. Greens run unopposed. Tory seat, close 2 horse race between then and Labour, 2500 vote majority. Tory candidate All 3 UFR parties lost their deposit but weirdly the Greens did worst, barely outperforming the Pirate Party. Labour had a 10% surge last time which might not repeat, also the Tory is Alun Cairns who just resigned as welsh secretary over the rape case. I don't think anyone has a clue what'll happen here.

Brecon and Radnorshire. LD run unopposed. Tory seat with decent majority, LD second, PC lost deposit, greens didn't run. UTR meaningless but if PC and Labour got behind LD it would be tight. Possible change but unlikely.

Cardiff Central. LD run unopposed. Safe Labour seat, PC and Greens lost deposits. UTR meaningless, no change.

Montgomeryshire. LD run unopposed. Safe Tory seat, LD distant second, Greens lost deposit. UTR meaningless, no change.

Arfon. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. PC seat, very tight between then and Labour. LD lost deposit, greens didn't run, Tories nowhere. UTR reinforces PC hold, could still change- Labour did very well here last time.

Caerphilly. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. Pretty safe Labour, Tories second, PC third, LD nd Greens lost deposits. UTR probably meaningless, could conceivably weaken Labour but probably no change.

Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. PC seat with Labour and Tories almost tied for 2nd 10% adrift, LD lost deposit, no green. UTR meaningless, could conceivably go any of 3 ways but I think probably no change.

Dwyfor Meirionnydd. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. PC seat with Tories fairly distant second, Labour close behind, LD lost deposit, no green. UTR reinforces PC seat but not by much. cCuld conceivably go any of 3 ways but I think probably no change.

Llanelli. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. Safe Labour seat, tories and PC distant second, LD lost deposit, no green. No change, UTR could get PC into second but probably not.

Pontypridd. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. Fairly safe Labour seat but was Owen Smith's. Tories second, PC third, LD lost deposit, no green. Not sure what'll happen but UTR meaningless.

Ynys Mon. Plaid Cymru run unopposed. Labour seat, Tories and PC neck and neck for second. LD lost deposit, no green. UTR meaningless but 3 way race.

SUMMARY...

OK so Wales what are you up to? It's not as bad as England and the Greens but it's still a lot of noise over very little.

Greens gain nothing except from saving some lost deposits. Only gain support in a seat where they are nowhere. Didn't run in most seats anyway. Lose nothing.

LDs- 1 seat possibly contestable and aided by UTR, other 2 meaningless. In every seat where they stepped down, they lost their deposit so they lose nothing here.

PC- arguably the biggest "winner"- they save some lost deposits, give up some seats where they save deposits but achieved nothing else. It'll help them hold 2 seats and may just get them one more, but all 3 are against Labour not the Tories.

tjagain

Kelvin – so why will Swinson work with PC but not with SNP?

Because the SNP are going to take her seat? 🙂

Getting back to the tories.
IOPC have announced their announcement about the investigation into Johnson and Arcuri is going to remain underwraps until after the election.
So thats a score of two potentially highly embarrassing reports into the tories being suppressed.

LIB DEMS IN ENGLAND- THE HEADLINE ACT!

TL;DR- it genuinely is a load of shite. In most of these seats, either the Greens lost their deposit or didn't even bother to run last time. Out of 40, there's only a handful that UTR can possibly make a difference and in about half, it's the wrong difference- they can weaken Labour and help the Tories.

The hard reality is that most of this "pact" isn't a pact at all, the Greens can't stand down if they weren't standing in the first place. It's a scam.

Liberal Democrats – 40 seats

Bath. Lib Dem seat, greens lost deposit. UTR meaningless but Tories close enough to threaten, Labour not really. No change.

Bermondsey and Old Southwark. Labour seat, greens lost deposit, UTR meaningless but Lib dems could possibly threaten Labour.

Buckingham- a weird one because of John Bercow. No idea at all.

Cheadle- Tory seat, 5000 majority, Lib Dems could possibly challenge for second but UTR meaningless- no green candidate. Labour realistically can't challenge.

Chelmsford- Safe tory seat, Labour second, Lib Dems nowhere, greens lost deposit. UTR meaningless.

Chelsea and Fulham- pretty safe Tory seat, Labour distant second, Lib dems nowhere, greens lost deposit. UTR meaningless. Lib Dem support for Labour could possibly open it up but probably not. UTR meaningless.

Cheltenham- Tory marginal, Lib Dems close behind, Greens lost deposit but even their rubbish 1000 votes could be important. Labour/Lib Dem pact would almost certainly turn this yellow, Labour have no chance. UTR actually might be important, woohoo, we found one!

Chippenham- Bald. Tory safe seat, Lib dems second, Labour close behind, no green. UTR meaningless. Combined lib dem and labour vote not enough to win.

Esher and Walton. Safe Tory. Jedis. Labour second, Lib Dems close. Greens lost deposit but UTR could conceivably make the difference between... Lib Dems being second or third.

Finchley and Golders Green- Tory marginal, Labour close behind. Lib Dems nearly lost deposit, greens did. Undead cowboys. UTR/Lib Dem surge if it happens would keep the seat blue, Lib Dem support would probably put Labour into seat.

Guildford. Safe tory. Lib Dems and Labour fight for 2nd, greens lost deposit. Like Esher, no meaningful difference but bould put Lib Dems into 2nd. Woo.

Harrogate and Knaresborough- Tory safe seat, LD second, Labour close behind. No greens. UTR irrelevant

Hazel Grove- pretty safe tory seat, lib dems second, greens lost deposit, UTR irrelevant

Hitchin and Harpenden- pretty safe tory seat, LDs nowhere, greens lost deposit UTR irrelevant

North Cornwall- Tory seat, Lib dems second and possibly in touch but no greens so UTR irrelevant. Labour nowhere but the 2 combined could challenge.

Norfolk North. Fairly safe lib dem, no greens, UTR irrelevant. Also, Norfolk literally means "northern people" so this is a really stupid seat name.

Oxford West and Abingdon- Lib dem marginal but no greens so UTR irrelevant. Labour nowhere, but have enough votes to decide it for the lib dems- except that apparently political parties can only cooperate when it means **** all.

Penistone and Stocksbridge- nothing funny about this place name. Labour marginal, no greens, Lib Dems lost deposit. UTR irrelevant. But Lib Dems could stand down here and lose nothing, in fact gain £500, and help keep it out of Tory hands. Ah well. Why target this seat?

Portsmouth South. Labour marginal, Lib Dems distant 3rd, greens lost deposit. UTR irrelevant but any lib dem gain from Labour will hand it to the Tories. Why target this seat? Oh no wait I know.

Richmond Park. FENTON! Tory marginal but it's that **** Zak Goldsmith. Literally 45 votes in it so it's kind of a shame that the greens didn't stand here so UTR is still irrelevant. JESUS CHRIST FENTON! Labour could definitely swing this one.

Romsey and Southampton North- safe tory. Greens lost deposit

Rushcliffe- fairly safe Tory, Labour probably too far behind to contest. Lib Dems and Greens both lost deposit so UTR irrelevant again but their backing for Labour would bring it properly into play.

South Cambridgeshire, Safe tory, greens lost deposit.

South East Cambridgeshire. Safe tory, no greens

South West Surrey. Surrey means "south west region". South West South West, so good they named it twice. Actually, it's not so good, because it's not only a safe seat, it's Jeremy ****'s seat. This one's fun though as there's an independent National Health Action party in second, and Lib Dem and Labour support could conceivably put them into first.

Southport- Tories, then labour then lib dems but all in with a chance. No greens so no UTR. Was actually a safe LD seat til 2015, when they lost almost half of their votes, and more last time. Possibly lib dems could stage a revival, possibly they're still too hated, don't know.

Taunton Deane- safe Tory. lib dems second, greens lost deposit, UTR meaningless. Even a Labour/Lib Dem combo would struggle to change this.

Thornbury and Yate. Safe tory, greens lost deposit.

Totnes. Safe tory, greens lost deposit, lib dems nowhere.

Tunbridge Wells. Safe tory. Disgruntled. Greens lost deposit, lib dems nowhere

Twickenham- Pretty safe lib dems- VInce Cable. No greens, so no UTR

Wantage- Safe tory, greens lost deposit, lib dems nowhere.

Warrington South. Labour marginal. No greens, lib dems nearly lost deposit. Could obviously stand down and lose nothing. Why target this seat?

Watford- Tory marginal, 2 horse race with Labour, no greens, Lib Dems nowhere. Why target this seat?

Wells. Pretty safe Tory, Lib dems distant second. Labour + lib dems = fight on your hands.

Westmorland and Lonsdale. Lib Dem marginal (Tim Farron) over tories. Good gluten free cakes. No greens.

Wimbledon- Fairly safe Tory, Labour second, ironically the greens lost the womble vote and it cost them their deposit. Despite the name, Uncle Bulgaria hates eastern europeans. Lib Dems nowhere but could probably swing it for Labour.

Winchester- Safe Tory, it's probably Frank Turner's fault. Lib dems distant 2nd, greens lost deposit

Witney Houston- safe tory. Greens lost deposit, Labour and lib dems tied. Why target this? Fighting only for 2nd.

York Outer- fairly safe Tory, Labour just about within touch, greens lost deposit. Why target this? Lib Dems may surge from 3rd place to a new high of 3rd.

SUMMARY

I found myself typing "why target this" more and more. There's at most 5 seats that the lib dems can contest here, with our without green support. And there's about as many where they can only hope to hurt Labour.

So it's a scam, basically. Of the 70 seats that are supposedly in the Unite To Remain pact, about half were already completely uncontested among those parties- only one of the three ran at all.

Of the remaining, almost all were effectively uncontested- one or all of the parties in the "pact" lost their deposit. I said earlier "what are they losing" and in fact they're literally losing nothing, and gaining £500 per seat. That's the "bone" that's being thrown.

There are perhaps 5 seats where a remain campaign can possibly benefit from this out of the 70, everything else is misrepresentation. They've actively sought out the seats where it makes no difference to make it look like a real thing.

There are almost as many where it could help put a leaver tory into the seat. Fair enough if the Lib Dems don't count Labour as reliable enough to be allies, but they're always a better bet than the Tories.

There's a rough parity for Labour and the Lib Dems where one could support the other. At most it amounts to a seat or two, and is probably outweighed by the seats where the UTR pact will cause damage (since the single most likely change is Slough).

Labour are no better in this of course, in fact across these 70 seats they're almost exactly tied in shitness, in terms of competition at least. But they're not claiming anything else.

I thought it was mostly a drive for extra Lib Dem seats, regardless of who they took them from, and brexit was just a bit of window dressing. But it isn't even that. It's just a load of noise.

why will Swinson work with PC but not with SNP?

I don’t think the SNP need any help to fight off the Tories in Scotland in this election.

There are perhaps 5 seats where a remain campaign can possibly benefit from this out of the 70, everything else is misrepresentation.

Yes, the PC/Green/LibDem arrangement is likely to at best only result in 5 or so seats being changed, and a few others being kept that might otherwise be lost. Will you be getting all exercised about it being a ‘sham’ if the Tories are a few seats short to form a government?

Her stated reason was that they are nationalists that want to break up the UK. Apparently tho its OK if you are Welsh

Actually an anti tory pact in Scotland could work.

Its not even going to make that much difference Kelvin lloking at Northwinds analysis

Dissonance - more of the establishment looking after their own. We al know Johnson has committed criminal misconduct with Acuri and of curse if they were not going to take it further that would have been announced

corrupt as hell

I don’t, as a rule, get involved in political discussions on here, but seeing as I want Brexit stopped, and Labour under Corbin offer nothing different to the Tories, what possible reason is there to vote Labour? Listening/watching each party’s election manifesto broadcasts, it seems they’re pretty much singing from the same bloody hymn sheet! So much for a two-party system, they’re pretty much indistinguishable from each other, might as well wear a purple rosette, it’s what you get when you mix red and blue.
There is only one party opposed to Brexit, so it seems they’re the only real opposition party in this country at the moment.

@TJ, calling my posts analysis is a bit flattering, in reality I'm just writing down easy-to-look-up facts. It's downright embarassing that so few people seem to be doing the same. It took me maybe 45 minutes to fact check the whole campaign.

kelvin

Subscriber

Yes, the PC/Green/LibDem arrangement is likely to at best only result in 5 or so seats being changed, and a few others being kept that might otherwise be lost. Will you be getting all exercised about it being a ‘sham’ if the Tories are a few seats short to form a government?

I said scam, not sham, it's not quite the same. You were asking why Labour don't work with the greens like the Lib Dems have but look at what that actually means. Empty gestures, meaningless dishonest headline grabbing and self promotion, and as much chance of self harm as there is of benefit.

Because yes, at best it could do what you say, if we're very lucky. At which point I'll still say it was a terrible tactic but we got away with it. But at worst it could do the exact opposite. And that's a risk they're taking for no good reason at all, because the possible negatives are not the flipside of the possible positives- they're an optional "extra".

All this campaign is really doing, apart from flattering Lib Dem egos, is distracting attention and energy away from the valuable parts of it. If they'd run the sane version of this campaign rather than dividing the attention it gains across about 10 times as many seats where it's completely pointless or in reality not even happening, and even diverting some of their energy into counterproductive moves, and undermining the few good cases by associating them with all the bad, how would that not be better?

Or, to put it another way- is there anything that the dishonest 70 seat campaign does, that is better than the honest focused 5-10 seat campaign would do? Is there anything, electorally, that isn't worse? I see nothing. Perhaps you can? Maybe it's generated more interest but it's misdirected it in the same act.

It's also left me pretty confident that there's no seat in the UK where Labour can step aside or cooperate to help a Green win, as you suggested. Asking for some sort of equality of cooperation or outcome seems to be demanding the impossible, in return for the simple and painless. I would be happy to be proven wrong but I doubt it very much

And I'm focusing on the Lib Dems, because they're the major player, but current forecasts suggest that the greens are going to gain a couple of per cent of the vote, but gain no seats. Those votes for the Greens will achieve nothing at best, and in many cases will actually make a Tory win more likely- the worst possible outcome for the green agenda. But they do have the capacity to influence those voters towards a party that will actually forward those goals, or at least discourage the waste, and that's not what Unite For Remain is doing. They're the junior party in this but they're just as responsible

(and their young, educated voter base gives them a pretty unique tool to do so- proportionally more of their voters are students than any other party, and students have way more tactical voting power since they can often vote in a choice of 2 seats. But Unite For Remain diminishes that power)

(Plaid Cymru I don't feel I know enough to judge. I feel like they're guilty of much the same offence just without the same capacity to cause harm, but that could be mistaken)

kelvin

Subscriber

I don’t think the SNP need any help to fight off the Tories in Scotland in this election.

The Lib Dems helped to put the Tories into Gordon... And many of the most marginal seats are here. I really do hope that the Tories collapse but we can't take it for granted. I'd also like to see Scottish Labour get kicked finally into total irrelevance, so that they can't ever put another Tory government into power like they did last time... Or maybe less realistically, have them learn from those mistakes rather than learning how to make the same mistakes they did last time only bigger and louder.

And it's not just about fighting the Tories. The Lib Dems say that Remain is the focus, and that Labour aren't remainey enough for them. There are still a few seats that look to be a Labour/SNP battleground. They're happy to hurt Labour in England even when it favours the Tories; why would they not be happy to do the same in Scotland to favour the biggest pure-Remain party?

Leaving aside the actual electoral benefits that they could reap, I think it exposes the reality of the Lib Dems' campaign even more than before. If Remain is their number one goal, why do they keep acting like it isn't? Do they see the SNP as unwelcome rivals for Remain rather than allies, or are they planning ahead to what happens after a disastrous election and subsequent hard brexit and positioning themselves for "I told you so"? Would they just rather make a big bold failure than a smaller less glorious success?

Or are they just absolute ****ing idiots? I'm a big believer in Hanlon's razor but honestly I think to screw up like this needs more than incompetence, it needs real wit.

CountZero

Member

seeing as I want Brexit stopped, and Labour under Corbin offer nothing different to the Tories

Surely you know that's untrue? They don't offer what I wish they would, but they're certainly not offering the same as the Tories.

I don’t, as a rule, get involved in political discussions on here, but seeing as I want Brexit stopped, and Labour under Corbin offer nothing different to the Tories

A referendum Vs definitely leaving? How is that the same?

There is only one party opposed to Brexit

That's not quite true, but if you're talking about the lib dems, the only salient fact is that they will never be able to stop brexit, as there is no chance of them winning a majority. If stopping brexit is your only priority, then the only way that will happen is with a labour govt providing a new referendum as they have promised to do.

they’re pretty much indistinguishable from each other

Look again. The tories and labour have never been more different than they are in this election. The tories are promising to take us out of Europe with a hard brexit and remove what's left of the welfare state on the back of it. Labour are promising a referendum where you can vote to remain, and are planning nothing less than a radical restructuring of the economy and government in favour of working people.

SNP are a remain party. Just one with realistic views on the limits of their power

Labour under Corbin offer nothing different to the Tories

You won't?

Firstly, re Brexit, it's a guaranteed second ref vs hard Brexit. Given the polls this is by far your best option for remain. And your only option.

Secondly they are a left wing party promising to redistribute wealth from the super rich to the needy. Tories were gpromising tax cuts to the rich until they found it breached their own rules. Another clear and massive difference.

Then you've got the fact that Labour are actually trying to make a difference whereas Tories just want to keep the rich rich. This is the biggest difference of all.

You really cannot say they are the same if you know even the very first thing about politics or this election.

I can’t think of a single policy area where Labour and the Conservatives are offering much the same thing… if you’re thinking that, just wait for the manifestos and compare them… you should be disabused of any “nothing different” ideas… on everything… including Brexit.

Labour under Corbin offer nothing different to the Tories

Eh?

The differences between the two main parties hasn't been this pronounced since the early 1980's

In one corner you have a return to 1970's level of public spending and a program of nationalisation, on the other you have the most right-wing uber-neoliberal agenda any patry has ever tried to be elected on.

Repeat after me - the Government's finances are not like household budget - unless you can issue your own money.

Let's just stop this archaic idea of trying to balance the books now. No political party (very rarely) achieves this. (I think there have been 3/4 surpluses in the last 30 years or so. Most of them Labour actually.)

Firstly the country needs a big infrastructure spend - immediately: Tax does not pay for government spending. It doesn't work like that.

A spend by the government into the economy moves the money from public "purse" (issued by the BoE) into the hands of the consumers. If the resources and the labour market can take up the slack with the spend the there is no issue with this. At all.

Spend first tax later.

A red in the government purse is a black in the private sector (eventually).

As long as we can agree on the things that need the money - and the slack is taken up then it's a good thing.

The money is eventually taxed back out of circulation - i.e removed.

Debt is merely the accumulation of money yet to be taxed back out of circulation. It's not a problem as the Government and its agents cannot go broke when it's the sole issuer of its own currency.

That way taxation's role is to control inflation NOT TO BALANCE THE BOOKS.

Money creation is explained on the BoE website. The Government can spend what it likes (within certain economic constraints - mainly inflation.)

It will come down to your ideology.

Labour will spend into the economy for the benefit of the majority - Tories will not spend in the same way and will shrink the economy (ideologically) for the few, by way of reduced taxation for the millionaires and billionaires to hang on to more of their money and keep the value of it high. We then rely on trickle down to circulate cash. It doesn't work. They hoard, evade tax etc and the economy stalls.

That's why we have a shite functioning economy for the majority. People need money (rather than borrow) to spend and live. They need services and opportunities. The Government is the only "purse" that can make the difference.

It's all around us.

(We already did this in a roundabout way via Q/E but that didn't circulate.)

Thats why austerity has not worked. Reducing government spending reduces economic activity and thus reduces tax take. the proof is in the numbers.

Thats why austerity has not worked.

Well it made life a bit harder for the lazy poor people so worked in the eyes of the tories.

And it led to things becoming so bad for such a large percentage of the population that they were even prepared to vote for something like Brexit as an answer to try and change things.

It isn’t, obviously - it’ll do the polar opposite - but I doubt that a majority would have voted for it if the referendum hadn’t been held on the back of years and years of a slash and burn approach to public services, particularly in already poor areas

Austerity laid the ground and created the atmosphere for self-serving shysters like Johnson, Gove and Farage to offer up the EU and immigrants as scapegoats and suggest simple solutions to cover for their own failures and scams

A spend by the government into the economy moves the money from public “purse” (issued by the BoE) into the hands of the consumers.

Hmm. This presumably is based on the assumption that what the state doesn't provide, people will have to pay for themselves. But for many people if the state doesn't provide it they won't spend it at all. This applies even more to stuff like infrastructure spending. Which backs up the argument that austerity doesn't work, because the money just won't get spent.

We're borrowing too much, and the mere threat of the profligate spending plans of the two main parties has already caused the UK's credit outlook to be downgraded:

https://news.sky.com/story/moodys-downgrades-uks-credit-outlook-after-brexit-paralysis-11857899

Moody's said neither of the main political parties in next month's election were likely to tackle high borrowing levels

If you could simply borrow and spend your way to a successful economy, every nation in the world would be rich. Keynesian stimulus has its place, but it isn't a panacea and it's not a good idea at all points in the economic cycle.

Wishful thinking.

so go on OOB - what has the tories austerity acheived apart from tens of thouseands of excess deaths and the stripping of public services

Both debt and deficit are up are they not?

We’re borrowing too much

There's always been two ways to solve this: reduce spend, or increase income. It was said at the time that austerity never works - you cannot cut your way out of a hole - and this seems to have been proven right again. The other option is to keep borrowing, invest wisely in things that grow your economy, and the tax take eventually brings you back into the black.

In theory either way works, but in practice austerity does not. And not only that, when you try, the net suffering in your country goes up. Have you not noticed how many more homeless people there are on the streets since 2015?

If you could simply borrow and spend your way to a successful economy, every nation in the world would be rich

And it's an extremely valid question to ask why not? The answer is to be found in the fact that in times of austerity the people who benefit the most are the very rich. The very rich tend to be in power in most countries in the world, ranging from outright kleptocratic corrupt regimes outside the west, to the supposedly 'democratic' developed countries who have learned how to game the system without looking like thieves. Funny isn't it that it's parties who represent the rich who are always telling us there is no money available, yet when their friends need it, either in the form of a bank bailout, or a bung to gain support in parliamnet, or to fight a war, it always magically appears.

I'll believe the borrowing/austerity myth when the government refuses to fight a war because they can't afford it. It never happens. As Tony Benn always used to say, if they can find the money to fight wars, they can find the money to help people at the bottom and provide a decent quality of life for everyone.

If borrowing was way too low we'd have seen negative growth, we didn't. We saw growth similar to the rest of Europe.

Of course it's entirely possible it proves impossible to spend at the rates we're being threatened/promised, especially since the mere mention of it has lowered our credit outlook.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/07/tories-and-labour-warned-over-ambitious-spending-promises-infrastructure-investment

If you could simply borrow and spend your way to a successful economy, every nation in the world would be rich

The answer is to be found in the fact that in times of austerity the people who benefit the most are the very rich. The very rich tend to be in power in most countries in the world, ranging from outright kleptocratic corrupt regimes outside the west, to the supposedly ‘democratic’ developed countries who have learned how to game the system without looking like thieves.

Linky?

...and if you can't find a credible source explain how *you* have acquired this knowledge of a worldwide conspiracy theory?

Finally, produce some evidence that explains why the Treasury Civil servants in the UK and elsewhere who must be aware of this conspiracy don't blow the whistle?

If borrowing was way too low we’d have seen negative growth, we didn’t. We saw growth similar to the rest of Europe.

But the quality of life for the poorest in society has gone down the drain. We're not to know if growth would have been higher, or the economy returned to growth sooner, if we hadn't had austerity.

There are many articles about austerity, google for some.

We’re not to know if growth would have been higher

Indeed. ...and given we don't know that, blowing 100-400bn on an experiment is irresponsible in the extreme. The UK already spends 25pc more servicing debt than it does on Social Services.

worldwide conspiracy theory?

It's called free-market capitalism. In particular the globalised flavour of it. There are many books about it. I'm sure you've read some.

The probkem with quoting Keynesian economics is that it cuts both ways. The IMF study said that every 1 unit of currency the govt cuts takes 1.5 units of currency off the GDP. So that's bad. Here's why:

The borrow and spend impending doom scenario so beloved of trickle down and supply side economists is largely a myth. It's not about debt levels, it's about affordability. If you can cover the debt, you can afford it (oversimplified but general true). Essentially if the interest rate on the debt is less than the nominal GDP you can continue to run deficits indefinitely and therefore increase debt infinitely.
Again from the IMF - in 6 advanced economies that difference has been -1.7% since 1880 and -0.8% since the 60s. So it's actually still more affordable, not less.
If you cut spending, you lower GDP by the multiplier. If you lower GDP, you lower NGDP. If you lower NGDP, you make the debt less affordable, so you have to pay back more to stay in the same place. With Les GDP, you have less money. If you have less money,your debt is less affordable and the downward spiral accelerates.

The UK already spends 25pc more servicing debt than it does on Social Services.

That's a choice, not an economic necessity.

Essentially if the interest rate on the debt is less than the nominal GDP you can continue to run deficits indefinitely and therefore increase debt infinitely.

Interests rates are low right now, they can't be relied upon to stay that way.

Interests rates are low right now, they can’t be relied upon to stay that way.

True. The ratio also doesn't stay constant, point data swings all the way from +5 to -5

I think 140 years of data showing a trend of -1.7% tells you that interest rate changes over the long term aren't an issue.

Growth has been lower than the rest of europe for most of the austerity times. come on - at least get the basics right.

Indeed. …and given we don’t know that, blowing 100-400bn on an experiment is irresponsible in the extreme. The UK already spends 25pc more servicing debt than it does on Social Services.

So what's your solution? Slash spending? Who're you going to leave on the scrapheap? Which kids are you going to select for disadvantaged upbringing?

Just out of curiosity, why, on numerous news outlets (including the BBC and guardian) are the Conservatives described as having the biggest spending plans in recent Conservative history while Labour have the greatest borrowing plans in recent Labour history. Both will be borrowing and both will be spending, so why is the spin lopsided making the tories sound generous while labour sound irresponsible?