FT General Election Poll 2019

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Why so? They have said that they will only revoke if they actually gain a majority. In that case enough people will have voted for them for that to be so. Democracy in action. The electorate are quite entitled to change their mind, particularly when they’ve been lied to by an unprecedentedly cynical campaign over 3 years ago.

 

In the unlikely event the Lib Dems win a majority, they could do so on 30%-35% of the vote, perhaps on a low turnout (in 2015, the Tories won a majority with 36% of the vote and 11.3m votes v. 52% & 17.4m for Leave in the referendum). That doesn't seem to me to be a democratic way of overturning a referendum vote supported by 52%.

 

I agree with your last sentence. That's part of the reason why I'd now support a second referendum (which I opposed until a few months back). The impasse in parliament is the other reason.

 

Much as I regret the referendum result and agree that it was achieved through all sorts of dishonesty (on both sides, but worse on the Leave side), I cannot see it as democratic for a govt to simply over-rule a referendum result (even an advisory one) without even consulting the electorate to check whether they had indeed changed their minds.

 

This is a general election, even if Brexit will doubtless be one of the key issues. We'll be electing a govt for 5 years (in theory) and people will vote for different parties for all sorts of reasons, not just on Brexit. In that context, a govt winning power, maybe on 35% of the vote, has no democratic mandate to revoke. It would also cause all sorts of polarisation and bitterness, even worse than now, possibly alienating people from democratic politics, maybe even giving a boost to the Far Right. Yes, that would happen with a referendum, too - there's no easy solution to this mess - but that way, at least both sides would have a chance to win/lose on that specific issue.

 

 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Look a bit deeper and I think that language tells you a lot about the seats the Conservative party are now targetting, I think you'll be hearing a lot of Labour Midland/Northern towns in interviews and debates from the Tories media monkeys.

I agree. Seeing stuff about them targeting "rugby league towns" and "Workington Man" today. As I said, it all depends very much on how much Labour can drag issues other than Brexit to the forefront as to whether they hold those constituencies.

 

As suggested, whoever in the Bubble came up with that sparkling wordplay for Hancock might want to invest in a map if they want to come across as genuinely caring about those towns. Appearing to have a poor grasp of geography isn't a good look...

[FerrisBueller]

24 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Matt Hancock.

 

"Hey look, how about you hire us to rebuild your house? I mean, yeah we might have been the ones who bulldozed it unnecessarily, but you can trust us to make it 90% as good as it was!"

 

Snivelling, greasy little toad. Embarrassing.

 

 

Tories in a nutshell. Who are they gonna blame for all their dreadful policies when we leave the EU?

Edit - (Non-EU Immigrants)

[David Guiza]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Look a bit deeper and I think that language tells you a lot about the seats the Conservative party are now targetting, I think you'll be hearing a lot of Labour Midland/Northern towns in interviews and debates from the Tories media monkeys.

Yeah I saw an article about the Tories targeting Rugby League towns. Imagine telling somebody 20 odd years ago that Wigan or St Helens would vote Tory. 

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

On the topic of Matt Hancock, I did enjoy him mentioning that new cancer treatments are being rolled out from Wigan to Warrington, which is approximately 18 miles in distance and Barnsley to Bassetlaw, which are about 30 miles apart. 

 

Expect widespread changes from Leicester to Lutterworth in the near future. 

 

 

 

More locally, I hope to hear of some "rolling out" going on between Belgrave and Beaumont Leys.

[WigstonWanderer]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

In the unlikely event the Lib Dems win a majority, they could do so on 30%-35% of the vote, perhaps on a low turnout (in 2015, the Tories won a majority with 36% of the vote and 11.3m votes v. 52% & 17.4m for Leave in the referendum). That doesn't seem to me to be a democratic way of overturning a referendum vote supported by 52%.

 

I agree with your last sentence. That's part of the reason why I'd now support a second referendum (which I opposed until a few months back). The impasse in parliament is the other reason.

 

Much as I regret the referendum result and agree that it was achieved through all sorts of dishonesty (on both sides, but worse on the Leave side), I cannot see it as democratic for a govt to simply over-rule a referendum result (even an advisory one) without even consulting the electorate to check whether they had indeed changed their minds.

 

This is a general election, even if Brexit will doubtless be one of the key issues. We'll be electing a govt for 5 years (in theory) and people will vote for different parties for all sorts of reasons, not just on Brexit. In that context, a govt winning power, maybe on 35% of the vote, has no democratic mandate to revoke. It would also cause all sorts of polarisation and bitterness, even worse than now, possibly alienating people from democratic politics, maybe even giving a boost to the Far Right. Yes, that would happen with a referendum, too - there's no easy solution to this mess - but that way, at least both sides would have a chance to win/lose on that specific issue.

 

 

I absolutely agree that a referendum is by far the best way to decide what the country now wants. However the Tories wanted this election precisely to push for the hardest form of Brexit that they can get away with, perhaps harder than the current deal for all we know. In the unlikely event of a Brexit party majority, they would undoubtedly inflict “no deal”. Neither of these options has any sort of specific mandate despite the bogus arguments of the Brexit proponents, but these parties would use the election result to claim a democratic mandate, don’t see why the Libs can’t do the same.

Edited 30 October 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I absolutely agree that a referendum is by far the best way to decide what the country now wants. However the Tories wanted this election precisely to push for the hardest form of Brexit that they can get away with, perhaps harder than the current deal for all we know. In the unlikely event of a Brexit party majority, they would undoubtedly inflict “no deal”. Neither of these options has any sort of specific mandate despite the bogus arguments of the Brexit proponents, but the parties would use the election result to claim a democratic mandate.

 

I very much agree with your analysis above. I'd add that they also want a majority to introduce Hard Right policies in other spheres, not just Brexit, and to have 5 years leeway to do it. By "they", I mean the majority of Tory MPs and members; I'm not sure how ideological Johnson himself is - I'd see his motivation more as hunger for power and approval, and downright narcissism. I'm also sure that the Brexit Party would use a majority as a mandate for No Deal.

 

But because the Tories are cynically seeking a mandate on false pretenses, or because the Brexit Party would do the same, is no reason for the Lib Dems to deploy similar cynicism and contempt for democracy.

The Revoke policy is a sly tactic designed to win them the title of "the Remain party" so as to win votes off defecting Labour & Tory Remain supporters & so get more MPs - regardless of the cost to social cohesion or support for democratic politics, if they win a majority, or to the Remain cause if they don't.

 

Because if the tactic works and they are perceived as "the party for Remain voters", but they don't win enough seats for a majority, then unless tactical voting is exceptionally strong, they'll also be taking votes off Labour in Lab/Con marginals and handing seats to the Tories.

[Tuna]

 

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

As suggested, whoever in the Bubble came up with that sparkling wordplay for Hancock might want to invest in a map if they want to come across as genuinely caring about those towns. Appearing to have a poor grasp of geography isn't a good look...

Not sure it matters that much - Labour vote significantly increased last time out when Diane Abbott was going on the radio claiming recruitment of 50,000 coppers on about £300 a year - I don't think people care much about competence anymore.

 

It's going to come down to Boris v Corbyn in the end, that's what people will be thinking in the ballot box - those who can't tolerate either will probably go Lib Dem or Brexit depending on the referendum vote.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

23k majority. Boris could parachute himself in there.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

Boris has certainly united the Conservative party on Europe whatever happens

[David Guiza]

 Good to see - providing of course they actually register and use their vote. 

 

Regardless of their vote, nobody wants to see a poor turnout as it will lead to even more uncertainty. 

[Alf Bentley]

 

Funny, the more that I post on here slagging off the Lib Dem "Revoke" policy, the higher they go in the poll at the top.....almost overtaken the Tories now! 

[LiberalFox]

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...is there a party that will prioritise scientific co-operation and lobbying other countries to sort their houses out re emissions without adopting Green Party neo-Luddite options and actually not play by the rules of stupid realpolitik when it comes to international relations?

 

...damn, never mind then. I'll probably not get the chance to mail in a vote anyway.

Lib Dems

[Bobby Hundreds]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Funny, the more that I post on here slagging off the Lib Dem "Revoke" policy, the higher they go in the poll at the top.....almost overtaken the Tories now! 

At least it's a clear policy to remain and how they'd implement it even if does cause an explosion of gammon around the country. Whereas Labour must have so many splinters up their ar*es after 3.5 years.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Funny, the more that I post on here slagging off the Lib Dem "Revoke" policy, the higher they go in the poll at the top.....almost overtaken the Tories now! 

The policy has ramifications for the future as well that are pretty huge.

 

If it's accepted you can revoke on a parliamentary majority then it's also fine to action things this on one. 

 

I think this is very dangerous territory for such significant constitutional changes.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

At least it's a clear policy to remain and how they'd implement it even if does cause an explosion of gammon around the country. Whereas Labour must have so many splinters up their ar*es after 3.5 years.

 

Yep, people like a clear, simple solution - even if a problem is complex and requires a complex solution.

 

It's a lot easier for the LDs to offer a clear, simple solution as the vast majority of their existing and potential voters support Remain - and most of the seats they can realistically hope to win are Remainer seats.

Whereas Labour's existing voter base only went 70%-30% for Remain, and most of the marginals they can hope to win are Leave-voting seats. I'm in the tiny minority who were happy with their shifting fence-sitting stance.

 

Mind you, Labour politicians have done themselves no favours with the unclear way they've presented their policy - long, convoluted, reading out conference wording etc.

 

The Labour policy is simple now, isn't it? 

- Negotiate a Soft Brexit deal, then put it to a second referendum against Remain.

[Dahnsouff]

Will vote for whoever agrees to ignore the referendum result (never was legally binding) but commits to holding a new one with a sensible set of questions on it....

[Guest MattP]

On the FT polling figures so far - Which again shows how mental FPTP can be.

Some big hitters losing seats as well. Jess Phillips, Caroline Lucas, John Redwood, Zac Goldsmith, Emily Thornberry,

National Prediction: Conservative short 20 of majority

Party	2017 Votes	2017 Seats	Pred Votes	Gains	Losses	Net Change	Pred Seats
CON	43.5%	318	31.0%	37	49	-12	306
LAB	41.0%	262	23.0%	0	69	-69	193
LIB	7.6%	12	29.0%	74	0	+74	86
Brexit	0.0%	0	2.0%	0	0	+0	0
Green	1.7%	1	9.0%	1	0	+1	2
SNP	3.1%	35	3.0%	7	1	+6	41
PlaidC	0.5%	4	0.7%	1	1	+0	4
UKIP	1.9%	0	0.0%	0	0	+0	0
Other	0.7%	0	2.3%	0	0	+0	0
N.Ire		18		0	0	+0	18

[Bobby Hundreds]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Labour policy is simple now, isn't it? 

- Negotiate a Soft Brexit deal, then put it to a second referendum against Remain.

It seems a fairly simple concept but then Brexit negotiations can take a while can't they? What will the questions be on the second referendum, soft brexit deal/ no deal/ remain etc? How will this placate the midlands and north, seems a dangerous compromise. This could and probably will eat up another parliament.

 

Brexit is never going away in our lifetime is it?

 

 

[AKCJ]

37 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

 Good to see - providing of course they actually register and use their vote. 

 

Regardless of their vote, nobody wants to see a poor turnout as it will lead to even more uncertainty. 

I would imagine that's the same for every election though? 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

It seems a fairly simple concept but then Brexit negotiations can take a while can't they? What will the questions be on the second referendum, soft brexit deal/ no deal/ remain etc? How will this placate the midlands and north, seems a dangerous compromise. This could and probably will eat up another parliament.

 

Brexit is never going away in our lifetime is it?

 

 

 

Brexit negotiations will take a while whether or not the WA is renegotiated - and a Labour renegotiation could be comparatively easy as they'c mainly want changes that the EU will be happy about (Customs Union, stronger alignment with EU employment rights & environmental regulations etc.).

 

But the main bit of Brexit hasn't even started yet, even if Boris gets a majority and his WAB is passed. We'll either have several years of negotiations over the future relationship and FTA Deal or we'll have a very limited Future Relationship Deal or No Deal in a year's time - and be dealing with the economic & social consequences of that for years to come.

 

As you say, Brexit ain't going anywhere for years or possibly decades to come, be that negotiations or consequences - and political controversies either way.

 

My understanding is that Labour's proposed second referendum would be the Labour Deal (i.e. Soft Brexit) v. Remain. Personally, I can see a democratic case for including No Deal as an option (and hoping it doesn't win).

[Salisbury Fox]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The Labour policy is simple now, isn't it? 

- Negotiate a Soft Brexit deal, then put it to a second referendum against Remain.

Simple is not the term I would use. I cannot see why a leaver will vote for them on the basis of that policy given that the EU are hardly going to offer a decent deal knowing that Labour will put it to another referendum. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Simple is not the term I would use. I cannot see why a leaver will vote for them on the basis of that policy given that the EU are hardly going to offer a decent deal knowing that Labour will put it to another referendum. 

It's a strange policy, you could say it's aimed at "soft leavers" who want to vote Labour but are also worried about the economy post Brexit - problem with that is if you are that worried about the economy you more than likely won't be wanting to vote for Corbyn/McDonnell either.

[Carl the Llama]

As a remainer yet to be convinced that leaving won't be a total disaster I'm very tempted to go back to the Libs but I'm still very much undecided on whether I'll even vote, let alone who for.