Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[welshbairn]

Just now, Pet Jeden said:

Seriously?

Are you a paid employee of the Labour Party?

I've already told you, I work for the Internet Research Agency. Probably get a bonus for you thinking so though, cheers!

[sophia]

32 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

 

The SNP will win handily and make gains but the total wont start with a 5

 

Whilst I sympathise, it doesn't seem that long ago that five was more like the norm.

To be having a fair chance for ten times that amount of seats is testament to how close the good guys are to pressing the reset button.

[ICTJohnboy]

I'll be happy if they remain the 3rd largest party at Westminster.

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I've already told you, I work for the Internet Research Agency. Probably get a bonus for you thinking so though, cheers!

Nah. They could keep a straight face and claim no involvement in the Salisbury poisonings, Idlib air strikes and full-bladdered women in Trumps hotel room. But there is no way they could keep a straight face and claim Labour have the soundest and most straight-forward Brexit policy. Just a step too far.

[Ira Gaines]

The Labour policy is sound and straight forward. Obviously Tories will try and argue otherwise, but there's nothing complicated at all about it. I think ALL of the policies are straight forward when it comes to Brexit. Just depends on what one you agree with most. I'd probably lean towards Labour's stance but still won't vote for em. SNP all the way. As I say, more at stake in this country than that.

[BawWatchin]

3 minutes ago, Andrew Wells said:

The Labour policy is sound and straight forward. Obviously Tories will try and argue otherwise, but there's nothing complicated at all about it. I think ALL of the policies are straight forward when it comes to Brexit. Just depends on what one you agree with most. I'd probably lean towards Labour's stance but still won't vote for em. SNP all the way. As I say, more at stake in this country than that.

Voting Labour in Scotland would be utterly pointless and wouldn't achieve anything. Voting SNP forces Labour to work with them in exchange for concessions (assuming England doesn't return a tory majority government which is looking increasingly more likely)

[Ira Gaines]

Doesn't help that Scottish Labour is a total clownshoes outfit I guess.

[Donathan]

I'll be happy if they remain the 3rd largest party at Westminster.

So you’d be happier with the SNP getting 24 and the Lib Dems getting 23 than the SNP getting 59 and the Lib Dems getting 60?

[Pet Jeden]

14 hours ago, Andrew Wells said:

The Labour policy is sound and straight forward. Obviously Tories will try and argue otherwise, but there's nothing complicated at all about it. I think ALL of the policies are straight forward when it comes to Brexit. Just depends on what one you agree with most. I'd probably lean towards Labour's stance but still won't vote for em. SNP all the way. As I say, more at stake in this country than that.

It goes like this -

"Michel mate. I Know you would prefer us to remain, but would you mind giving us a more generous deal in order to help the Leave side in another referendum?  And, by the way, I hope you don't mind, but we are then going to make you look like a chump by campaigning against your revised offer. And by "we" I mean our 1-seat majority coalition of 5 parties".

"Sure thing Jezza. I'll get my 100-strong team working on it straight away. I don't think the 27 countries have had their fill of renegotiating yet".

Edited November 18, 2019 by Pet Jeden

[sophia]

1 hour ago, MixuFixit said:

He means seats in the 40s rather than 50s. Jeremy Blackwell's projections run from 47 to 52 so he's probably about right.

aye, I know that and the point I attempted to make, albeit obtusely,  is that a fortysomething result is staggeringly successful but frauds will somehow paint it something different.

[BFTD]

14 hours ago, Donathan said:

the Lib Dems getting 60?

 

[harry94]

14 hours ago, Pet Jeden said:

It goes like this -

"Michel mate. I Know you would prefer us to remain, but would you mind giving us a more generous deal in order to help the Leave side in another referendum?  And, by the way, I hope you don't mind, but we are then going to make you look like a chump by campaigning against your revised offer. And by "we" I mean our 1-seat majority coalition of 5 parties".

"Sure thing Jezza. I'll get my 100-strong team working on it straight away. I don't think the 27 countries have had their fill of renegotiating yet".

I think terms like 'negotiation' and 'deal' make it seem dramatic and there are teams of negotiators locked in a room trying to outwit each other. In some sense, there's truth to that in some of the technicality but it's not how this sort of agreement is broadly structured. We're looking at macro stuff, i.e. define the finances, law, citizens rights and border. It's not really that competitive a negotiation, sure the EU want to squeeze as hard as they can but the bar on approval is very low (it's a simple majority) and not getting an agreement through the UK parliament is a massive pain to the EU as well who would like to see this resolved but not at the expense of no deal (even if they do occasionally make a big song and dance in local elections). 

Of that package, the first three have more or less been agreed since a few months into the process and aren't really that contentious to either party so will likely be ratified to be more or less what has already been agreed.

On the sticking points, the red lines that have been set by Boris and co are structurally different to what Corbyn has pursued. The key point though is that Corbyn's plan involves a much closer relationship to the EU than proposed by Boris and choose a model offered by the EU, not too dissimilar to what May brought to parliament (but presumably they wouldn't have trusted the Tories to negotiate a trade deal based on the back of it). Any reputable economist would tell you that a closer Brexit is likely to be less damaging than a more distant one. It's still a pile of shit but it's implementable and it's not an unreasonable claim for Corbyn to make.

Some of the language surrounding the process has massively obscured what is actually happening and that's quite worrying when this is the easy part. For the next stage, that's going to be when our government have the piss taken out them and there is some real competitive negotiation involved.

[Pet Jeden]

47 minutes ago, harry94 said:

I think terms like 'negotiation' and 'deal' make it seem dramatic and there are teams of negotiators locked in a room trying to outwit each other. In some sense, there's truth to that in some of the technicality but it's not how this sort of agreement is broadly structured. We're looking at macro stuff, i.e. define the finances, law, citizens rights and border. It's not really that competitive a negotiation, sure the EU want to squeeze as hard as they can but the bar on approval is very low (it's a simple majority) and not getting an agreement through the UK parliament is a massive pain to the EU as well who would like to see this resolved but not at the expense of no deal (even if they do occasionally make a big song and dance in local elections). 

Of that package, the first three have more or less been agreed since a few months into the process and aren't really that contentious to either party so will likely be ratified to be more or less what has already been agreed.

On the sticking points, the red lines that have been set by Boris and co are structurally different to what Corbyn has pursued. The key point though is that Corbyn's plan involves a much closer relationship to the EU than proposed by Boris and choose a model offered by the EU, not too dissimilar to what May brought to parliament (but presumably they wouldn't have trusted the Tories to negotiate a trade deal based on the back of it). Any reputable economist would tell you that a closer Brexit is likely to be less damaging than a more distant one. It's still a pile of shit but it's implementable and it's not an unreasonable claim for Corbyn to make.

Some of the language surrounding the process has massively obscured what is actually happening and that's quite worrying when this is the easy part. For the next stage, that's going to be when our government have the piss taken out them and there is some real competitive negotiation involved.

I didn't realise you were a P&B contributer, Theresa.

btw a decent chunk of the middle-class, liberal-left urban electorate might be prepared to suspend their common sense and delude themselves into believing in Corbyn's high wire balancing act. But there's no way the UK electorate as a whole are going to buy that argument.  Labour's best hope is for the electorate to forget that the election is about Brexit or for some truly shocking revelations about Boris (and I don't mean a bit of hanky-panky or a domestic)

Edited November 18, 2019 by Pet Jeden

[harry94]

55 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

I didn't realise you were a P&B contributer, Theresa.

btw a decent chunk of the middle-class, liberal-left urban electorate might be prepared to suspend their common sense and delude themselves into believing in Corbyn's high wire balancing act. But there's no way the UK electorate as a whole are going to buy that argument.  Labour's best hope is for the electorate to forget that the election is about Brexit or for some truly shocking revelations about Boris (and I don't mean a bit of hanky-panky or a domestic)

What's the alternative then?

Coming from any position of logic, leaving the EU was economically and politically a bad thing and all the ERG efforts about magical Canadian trade deals and closed borders have been widely derided as economically illiterate by anybody reputable.

Corbyn is effectively saying to interlock economically and avoid these worst impacts. Even if you argue that it ruins the point of 'sovereignty' etc, that's immaterial as these things were magical concepts that didn't really exist anyway. There is no good Brexit, just versions which are less shit than their alternative in damaging our future growth and GDP.

[Ira Gaines]

Selling it as a "high wire balancing act" is, just like the other arguments, totally Tory. Which is odd given that Labour's position is exactly the same one Boris and Jacob Rees Mogg were pushing before the referendum. Been a bit of a different song from the Tories since Leave actually won. I wonder why that is.

[Pet Jeden]

57 minutes ago, harry94 said:

What's the alternative then?

Coming from any position of logic, leaving the EU was economically and politically a bad thing and all the ERG efforts about magical Canadian trade deals and closed borders have been widely derided as economically illiterate by anybody reputable.

Corbyn is effectively saying to interlock economically and avoid these worst impacts. Even if you argue that it ruins the point of 'sovereignty' etc, that's immaterial as these things were magical concepts that didn't really exist anyway. There is no good Brexit, just versions which are less shit than their alternative in damaging our future growth and GDP.

Either, be honest like the Lib Dems and openly give the finger to the electorate because plebs don't know what's best for them. Or be a democrat and accept that, ultimately, the people are sovereign. And if the people have chosen an option which in the short term might leave the country with 5% less GDP ( nb not GDP per person) then tough - suck it up.  Decisions about whether or not to be in an economic/political/legal union are decisions of the heart. Otherwise you could just have had a panel of 100 economists do their forecasts and let their calculations decide! The same bollocks was used and will be used to rubbish Scottish independence aspirations.

[dorlomin]

Well

 

 

For the moment the Conservative bounce in the polls is showing up across most polling companies. Survation now have a question related to the local candidate. 

As always, polling is not voting. It can only show changes in sentiment and estimates of how that sentiment will pan out on election day. But Labour have a mountain to climb and a host of long standing issues people have been point out for a while.

FWIW the last election had the Maybot, dementia tax and two terrorist attacks that likely harmed the Tory vote. Boris seems to have made sure he is getting a lot of noise on money for police, a plan for money for the NHS and an unambiguous plan for "Brexit" to sell. 

[pandarilla]

There's no doubt that a Boris led election campaign is going to be more popular than a may-led one.

Corbyn is relying on a huge local movement and massive youth turnout. No real signs of it yet and again, am election at this time of year is not suited to that strategy.

I hope I'm wrong but Scottish independence being more likely is the only possible benefit to come out of this election.

[welshbairn]

28 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

an unambiguous plan for "Brexit" to sell

One that would lead to either a border in the Irish sea or a hard one in Ireland, depending on whether we crash out on Dec 31st 2020 or not. But he might replace the police they sacked, and is chasing Labour's spending plans for the NHS. Whoopee!

[John Lambies Doos]

There's no doubt that a Boris led election campaign is going to be more popular than a may-led one.

Corbyn is relying on a huge local movement and massive youth turnout. No real signs of it yet and again, am election at this time of year is not suited to that strategy.

I hope I'm wrong but Scottish independence being more likely is the only possible benefit to come out of this election.

Scottish independence is what we should all be concerned about. Get us out of this fucking mess