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.
So they sit in an interview and say “Before we employ you we need to know you’re willing to choose questions with bias so we get our predictions wrong in favour of 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, “Choose questions with bias so we get our predictions wrong in favour of our favoured party, we know this will make you look incompetent and harm your own future in the Polling industry 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.
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.