politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The threat of Corbyn becoming PM is irrelevant unless LAB back

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The threat of Corbyn becoming PM is irrelevant unless LAB backs a second referendum

Lots of discussion ahead of tomorrow’s meeting of Labours National Executive Committee which will decide on the party’s policy on Brexit for the May 23rd euro elections. The big question is whether a referendum will be offered and under what terms.

Read the full story here

Cyclefree

First!

Like all good investigators.....

Gardenwalker

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

Ishmael_Z

Second, because someone has to be.

Ishmael_Z

Ishmael_Z said:

Second, because someone has to be.

eta: dammit.

Gardenwalker

Ishmael_Z said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Second, because someone has to be.

eta: dammit.

Soz.

adamandcat

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

eek

Gardenwalker said:

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.

I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.

Brom

In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.

Cyclefree

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

isam

Tony Slattery interview...

The Guardian...

Upsetting tale...




2003

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17

Sean_F

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.

I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.

North East, and maybe Wales are the only regions where that is so.

Any region with 5 or more is likely to see at least one other party get a seat, unless both Labour and Brexit Party poll both poll above 30% nationally.

anothernick

adamandcat said:

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.

Gardenwalker

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.

I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.

I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.

However,
I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);

Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;

Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;

That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.

The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.

anothernick

Brom said:

In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.

Agreed. Labour will continue to block any possible Brexit deal, whilst officially sitting on the fence on the issue.

Peter_the_Punter

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Sadly, Madam, that is not an option open to us all.

IanB2

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

mwadams

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.

I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.

I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.

However,
I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);

Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;

Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;

That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.

The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.

My position in a nutshell. Even down to Hague.

Richard_Tyndall

isam said:

Tony Slattery interview...

The Guardian...

Upsetting tale...




2003

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17

Just read that myself. Very moving.

MikeSmithson

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Sadly, Madam, that is not an option open to us all.

You ought to follow the Donald Trump approach these issues.

kinabalu

There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.

Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -

"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"

Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.

MikeSmithson

Brom said:

In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.

How do you know? I have voted labour at the last two general elections as a tactical vote in a very tight marginal which flips between elections. Labour will not get my vote next time as long as it is led by Corbyn.

TheValiant

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

eek

mwadams said:

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.

I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.

I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.

However,
I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);

Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;

Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;

That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.

The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.

My position in a nutshell. Even down to Hague.

Why do you think I'm continually drumming the point that people in some parts of the country need to hold their nose and vote for Labour.

In London the numpties will probably win 3 seats between them. Were they organised and working as a group they would probably be winning 5 or 6 of them...

kinabalu

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

You've GOT to vote!

People died ...

isam

Richard_Tyndall said:

isam said:

Tony Slattery interview...

The Guardian...

Upsetting tale...




2003

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17

Just read that myself. Very moving.

I wish him well but the fact the same article has been produced again today is not good.

eek

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

logical_song

Gardenwalker said:

eek said:

Gardenwalker said:

I don’t agree that Corbyn *needs* to offer second ref.

Whether centrists like me like it or not, the Lib Dems have only benefited marginally from being anti-Brexit, and now the Chuka squad have come along to divide said vote even further.

Corbyn is doing moderately well out of today’s dynamic, which sees the Tory vote collapsing. The key metric under FPTP is not the total share of the vote, but the difference between Labour and Tory votes. Labour is now half a length ahead of the Tories.

Having said all that, I continue to believe that a moderate, anti-Brexit (or at least, anti the fantastic interpretation of Brexit) leader would have Labour up in the 40s. Corbyn depresses the Labour vote, it’s just that the Tory Brexit policy depresses *their* vote even more.

I actual don't think it matters for the EU elections. In some regions (North East, Wales, East Midlands) the vote share required to win a seat is so high that the only possible winners are Farage / Brexit and Labour.

I know that when my postal vote arrives mid next week I will be putting a peg on my nose and voting Labour - otherwise my vote will be wasted.

I am in London, so one hopes I have more options.

However,
I won’t vote Tory, and perhaps never will again (I even voted for Hague FFS);

Won’t vote Brexit and obviously won’t vote UKIP;

Labour have been taken over by a far left sect, so I can’t vote for them;

That leaves Lib Dems, CUK, and Greens.

The polling suggests there are up to 30% of us, but we are doomed to split our vote ineffectually because the 3 numpties cannot get their shit together. It’s the Remain campaign all over again.

Look at the polls just before the Euro Elections and cast your vote for the one most likely to benefit from it out of Libdem, Green and CUK - you'll have to do some maths since that may not be the leading one.

Sean_F

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

logical_song

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

You've GOT to vote!

People died ...

Also it's sort of proportionalish so all votes count.

Awb683

Anything that is bad for Labour is good for the rest of us.

No_Offence_Alan

kinabalu said:

There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.

Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -

"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"

Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.

But Corbyn thinks the EU is a capitalist club, not a socialist one.

IanB2

The first ever national election where voting either Tory or Labour would be wasting your vote. No one will know what it means, and odds on it will be interpreted in a way you do not like.

Peter_the_Punter

MikeSmithson said:

Brom said:

In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.

How do you know? I have voted labour at the last two general elections as a tactical vote in a very tight marginal which flips between elections. Labour will not get my vote next time as long as it is led by Corbyn.

Thanks Mike, but isn't this a case of the bald leading the bald?

williamglenn

Warren is a good communicator.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1122314100363579398?s=21

algarkirk

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

Agree. I once voted Green, holding my nose, as the most likely small party to take a seat that that was under threat from the BNP in Euro elections some years ago (NW Region). But I wouldn't vote Labour now in such a way, as their leadership and supporters base is as totalitarian in instinct as can be imagined in what was a mainstream party.

Richard_Tyndall

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

isam said:

Tony Slattery interview...

The Guardian...

Upsetting tale...




2003

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17

Just read that myself. Very moving.

I wish him well but the fact the same article has been produced again today is not good.

I hadn't noticed the date. No not good either for the paper or Mr Slattery.

Edit. I just noticed it is a completely different article although with the same basic message

Theuniondivvie

isam said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

isam said:

Tony Slattery interview...

The Guardian...

Upsetting tale...




2003

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17

Just read that myself. Very moving.

I wish him well but the fact the same article has been produced again today is not good.

If there's anything symptomatic of bipolarity, it's repeated cycles of damaging behaviour. Contra Nietzsche's aphorism about what does not kill you, each cycle leaves you weaker, with fewer friends, poorer, more physically damaged, farther from a normal life. The contrast between that article and today's one is a pretty good illustration of that.

eek

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

Sean_F

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.

Theuniondivvie

Sean_F said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.

Since you were a member of a party lead by Farage, that's hardly a revelation.

david_herdson

anothernick said:

adamandcat said:

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.

It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.

Sandpit

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Can’t you vote for Lord Buckethead, or scribble a cathartic ‘f... the lot of you’ across your ballot paper?

david_herdson

IanB2 said:

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?

IanB2

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?

No, it’s toward the north of Bavaria. Very scenic if not very sunny right now.

Theuniondivvie

An enlightening exchange.

https://twitter.com/mike84625280/status/1122844548152086529

https://twitter.com/edward_smiles/status/1122852327520636928

david_herdson

kinabalu said:

There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.

Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -

"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"

Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.

Making pointless gestures is Corbyn's forte. He would undoubtedly support one if he thought it was in his interests to do so.

TOPPING

Sean_F said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.

You were a UKIP member?

Sean_F

Theuniondivvie said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.

Since you were a member of a party lead by Farage, that's hardly a revelation.

No it isn't. For me, it's a toss up between Brexit or Conservative, depending on the polls. So long as the Conservatives stay above 10%, I'll vote Conservative; if they fall below it, I'll vote Brexit, as a Conservative vote will likely be wasted.

Sean_F

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.

You were a UKIP member?

Between 2013-16.

kinabalu

logical_song said:

Also it's sort of proportionalish so all votes count.

That’s right. Although in a very anal atomic sense that is also true of FPTP.

For every election the outcome is the same whether you vote or not. Therefore no single vote counts.

But if no vote counts it follows that every vote counts the same and therefore - since the outcome is decided by votes - all votes count.

I'll be voting anyway. Looking forward to it.

anothernick

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

adamandcat said:

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.

It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.

Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.

eek

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?

Given that Eire will remain in the EU surely it doesn't change..

TGOHF

Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.

Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?

When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?

bigjohnowls

On Topic Euro Elections not top priority.

Jezza more concerned with being PM and the latest Kraftwerk gig

https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=@ideanpod

kinabalu

No_Offence_Alan said:

But Corbyn thinks the EU is a capitalist club, not a socialist one.

That is a great irony.

The route to a socialist government is via offering to remain a member of a club that prohibits socialism.

IanB2

eek said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?

Given that Eire will remain in the EU surely it doesn't change..

It would, as it is a sort of geographical weighted average by land area. According to WP it shifts but will/would still be in Bavaria.

Geeks can argue about the distant French overseas territories, which have been excluded from the calculation.

Sandpit

Theuniondivvie said:

An enlightening exchange.

https://twitter.com/mike84625280/status/1122844548152086529

https://twitter.com/edward_smiles/status/1122852327520636928

That “mike” account is almost certainly a bot. It writes very long sentences completely absent of punctuation.

Theuniondivvie

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

An enlightening exchange.

https://twitter.com/mike84625280/status/1122844548152086529

https://twitter.com/edward_smiles/status/1122852327520636928

That “mike” account is almost certainly a bot. It writes very long sentences completely absent of punctuation.

Maybe, his own tweets seem barely literate. They spent a bit of time getting the profile pic just right though!

david_herdson

anothernick said:

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

adamandcat said:

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.

It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.

Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.

Labour can only make that offer if it:
- Actively supports Revoke & Remain, which seriously pisses off some of its current support and more of its former support; or
- Actively supports such Brexit deal as it can negotiate, which would broadly be the existing one but with more rule-taking, which will seriously piss off a lot of its current support; or
- Takes no official position in the referendum, leaving it at the mercy of events, splitting the party and risking some kind of Leave vote winning again.

None of these is a palatable option. By far the best outcome for Labour is for the Tories to deliver a crappy Brexit before Labour comes to power (although that will still prompt demands for Rejoin among passionate Remainers).

TOPPING

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

TheValiant said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Completely agree. Isn't it that they'll support a 2nd referendum to stop a 'Bad Tory Brexit'.

So presumably only a bad deal (defined how?) and only negotiated by the Tories (so if a UUP member took part, then it becomes not a Tory deal - in fact, what about the Conservatives? Are they also the Tories, or are Tories merely right wing Conservatives).

Whilst I don't, if you want to Remain, don't vote Labour. Your only options (nationally) are CHUK, Lib Dem or Green.

And in an area where a party needs to win 16-24% of the vote to gain a seat - exactly who should you vote for to avoid Farage winning another seat?

Please answer that question as I suspect the answer is that you will need to vote Labour unless your working out is very different from mine.

I'd rather Farage won the seat than Labour did.

That doesn't actual answer my question does it?

And do you really think Farage winning 2 of the 3 North East seats would be a good idea?

I rather think it does. Given a choice between Farage and Labour, I choose the former.

You were a UKIP member?

Between 2013-16.

wow

matt

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

An enlightening exchange.

https://twitter.com/mike84625280/status/1122844548152086529

https://twitter.com/edward_smiles/status/1122852327520636928

That “mike” account is almost certainly a bot. It writes very long sentences completely absent of punctuation.

Could be a New York lawyer. Particularly if definitions are randomly scattered.

rcs1000

isam said:

Tony Slattery interview...

The Guardian...

Upsetting tale...




2003

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2003/jul/06/features.magazine17

I hope there are no Avengers spoilers in there

david_herdson

TGOHF said:

Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.

Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?

When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?

After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.

In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.

By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.

AlastairMeeks

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

Sandpit

matt said:

Sandpit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

An enlightening exchange.

https://twitter.com/mike84625280/status/1122844548152086529

https://twitter.com/edward_smiles/status/1122852327520636928

That “mike” account is almost certainly a bot. It writes very long sentences completely absent of punctuation.

Could be a New York lawyer. Particularly if definitions are randomly scattered.

LOL. More likely to be Sergei from St Petersburg, using Google Translate and MS Word grammar checker.

anothernick

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

adamandcat said:

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.

It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.

Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.

Labour can only make that offer if it:
- Actively supports Revoke & Remain, which seriously pisses off some of its current support and more of its former support; or
- Actively supports such Brexit deal as it can negotiate, which would broadly be the existing one but with more rule-taking, which will seriously piss off a lot of its current support; or
- Takes no official position in the referendum, leaving it at the mercy of events, splitting the party and risking some kind of Leave vote winning again.

None of these is a palatable option. By far the best outcome for Labour is for the Tories to deliver a crappy Brexit before Labour comes to power (although that will still prompt demands for Rejoin among passionate Remainers).

Yes I agree that would be the best scenario for Labour but since there is no parliamentary majority for a deal, cooperating with the Tories is anathema to Corbyn and he does not, in any case, have the power to force his MPs to allow a crappy Tory deal through it is very unlikely that he will be able to bring about this desirable (from his point of view) outcome.

TGOHF

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

david_herdson

eek said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?

Given that Eire will remain in the EU surely it doesn't change..

I assume that the centre's calculated in a way that's almost literally weighted (i.e. on what point would you need to balance a map of the EU for it to be stable), rather than the mid-point between the N/S-E/W extremes.

TGOHF

david_herdson said:

eek said:

david_herdson said:

IanB2 said:

Am on a train at more or less the (pre-Brexit) geographical centre of the EU.

Somewhere near Vienna, at a guess?

Given that Eire will remain in the EU surely it doesn't change..

I assume that the centre's calculated in a way that's almost literally weighted (i.e. on what point would you need to balance a map of the EU for it to be stable), rather than the mid-point between the N/S-E/W extremes.

The median wouldn't change but the second moment of area would.

AlastairMeeks

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.

Sean_F

david_herdson said:

TGOHF said:

Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.

Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?

When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?

After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.

In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.

By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.

It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.

kinabalu

david_herdson said:

Making pointless gestures is Corbyn's forte. He would undoubtedly support one if he thought it was in his interests to do so.

My view is that the pivot to Ref2 will come if we get a pre Brexit general election, and only then if Labour calculate that it increases their chance of winning - in which case it will be the very opposite of a pointless gesture in that it will not be pointless (it might well work) and will not be a gesture (it will be in the manifesto).

Sense you have the Trump thing in mind but this is serious business. I don't think they will mess about. They want to GTTO.

TGOHF

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.

You would vote to make John McDonnell PM ?

TOPPING

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

AlastairMeeks

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.

You would vote to make John McDonnell PM ?

Let me help you:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/almost

eek

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TGOHF said:

Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.

Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?

When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?

After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.

In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.

By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.

It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.

How - given that the only thing people will care about is the percentage of votes received.

In the locals it's impossible for the 3 main parties to collectively do that badly as in a lot of the country they represent all the candidates so between them will get 99.99% of the vote (and it's only that low as some papers will be intentionally spoilt).

matt

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Oddly, I recall saying perhaps 2 years ago that only Johnson had the absolute chutzpah to carry out a Brexit reversal. He could still do although he hasn't helped himself in the interim.

Cyclefree

Sandpit said:

Cyclefree said:

It's pretty clear that Labour are not going to offer a referendum. Or that any such offer will be so caveated as to be meaningless.

So anyone voting Labour should do so on that basis.

Frankly, I can see no good basis for voting for any of the parties. They are either rancid or divided or both or pursuing absurd policies or utterly irrelevant.

I will be washing my hair instead.

Can’t you vote for Lord Buckethead, or scribble a cathartic ‘f... the lot of you’ across your ballot paper?

I’m tempted to use the words quoted by Nick Watts on Newsnight - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mMGxWjxu7gU.

“Fuck knows. I’m past caring. It’s like the living dead in here.”

TGOHF

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.

You would vote to make John McDonnell PM ?

Let me help you:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/almost

I could go on - but I suspect we could get through another 30-40 of utter loons, bigots and cranks before you wavered.

Sean_F

eek said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TGOHF said:

Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.

Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?

When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?

After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.

In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.

By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.

It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.

How - given that the only thing people will care about is the percentage of votes received.

In the locals it's impossible for the 3 main parties to collectively do that badly as in a lot of the country they represent all the candidates so between them will get 99.99% of the vote (and it's only that low as some papers will be intentionally spoilt).

Labour winning an NEV of about 30%, Conservative 29%, Lib Dem 14%, Others 27%.

eek

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

Can I test that almost bit with

Diana Abbott,
John McDonnell.
Owen Smith?

AlastairMeeks

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.

You would vote to make John McDonnell PM ?

Let me help you:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/almost

I could go on - but I suspect we could get through another 30-40 of utter loons, bigots and cranks before you wavered.

That leaves more than 200, the great majority.

david_herdson

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

TGOHF said:

Surely there must be a level beneath which Best PM ratings become irrelevant.

Yes 24 beats 19 but both are so crap does it matter ?

When do Con MPs try again - after the locals or after the Euros ?

After the Euros if they have any sense (doubtful). If they move early, they risk being blamed in part for the result in the Euros.

In any case, the locals probably won't be all *that* bad. The Tories made around net gains in this cycle of seats each of the last five rounds, including 2011 and 2015 in office. It's an extremely high base and even the loss of 1000 seats would leave the party well up on this set on the position going into 2007. Given that both Labour, the LDs and UKIP are suffering their own problems, and BXT hadn't organised in time, the risk of huge losses is mitigated against to some extent.

By contrast, the Euros are likely to be an unmitigated disaster.

It's remarkable that all three parties are polling around their core vote. I expect that in the locals, the Conservatives will get the type of vote share they got in 1996, Labour the type of vote share they got in 1982, and the Lib Dems, they type of vote share they got in 1989.

I think the NEV figures will be higher than that but only because the shares have to go somewhere and the minor parties aren't sufficiently well organised or represented. The Westminster VI gives 30% or so to minor parties but that's with 20% or so for Change UK and the Brexit Party between them, who'll get zero for these locals.

eek

Sean_F said:

Labour winning an NEV of about 30%, Conservative 29%, Lib Dem 14%, Others 27%.

How do others get 27% when we are talking about the local elections..

TOPPING

matt said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Oddly, I recall saying perhaps 2 years ago that only Johnson had the absolute chutzpah to carry out a Brexit reversal. He could still do although he hasn't helped himself in the interim.

Do I want Johnson as PM? No. Do I want to be a member of a party lead by Johnson? Probably not. If he became leader it would be further proof that the Cons had lost any semblance of being a serious political party.

Stereotomy

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Wait, what do you stand for exactly?

david_herdson

kinabalu said:

david_herdson said:

Making pointless gestures is Corbyn's forte. He would undoubtedly support one if he thought it was in his interests to do so.

My view is that the pivot to Ref2 will come if we get a pre Brexit general election, and only then if Labour calculate that it increases their chance of winning - in which case it will be the very opposite of a pointless gesture in that it will not be pointless (it might well work) and will not be a gesture (it will be in the manifesto).

Sense you have the Trump thing in mind but this is serious business. I don't think they will mess about. They want to GTTO.

That misses my point: why, when Corbyn is so keen on pointless gestures, is Labour not making a pointless gesture *now*, when its failure to do so is costing it support? The only answer surely is that the leadership doesn't want to be trapped into having to deliver on it if it turns out - as you rightly note - to be a genuine commitment rather than a gesture.

AlastairMeeks

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

Can I test that almost bit with

Diana Abbott,
John McDonnell.
Owen Smith?

Right now I would weep salty tears of gratitude to be able to vote for an Owen Smith-led Labour party. As compared with the Conservative alternatives currently parading around the paddock, he is at least not actively malign or unhinged.

Sean_F

eek said:

Sean_F said:

Labour winning an NEV of about 30%, Conservative 29%, Lib Dem 14%, Others 27%.

How do others get 27% when we are talking about the local elections..

Big votes for independents and minor parties.

Richard_Nabavi

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You've been picked up on the 'almost' part of that post, but the second sentence is perhaps more interesting. I would think that there are quite a lot of wavering Labour voters who would be swayed by a referendum promise - after all, a lot of people signed up to the petition on the subject. Or perhaps it's too late: maybe Corbyn has lost so much credibility with that group that it wouldn't be enough to sway them now.

Of course a lot would depend on the circumstances of any election.

TOPPING

Stereotomy said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Wait, what do you stand for exactly?

The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.

Cyclefree

If Labour were to get rid of McDonnell, Corbyn, Williamson and the coterie around them (Milne, Murray, Chakrabati) etc) they’d be more appealing than a party that thinks the likes of Rees-Mogg, Johnson, IDS, Francois and Baker are worth listening to.

But the chances of that happening are slight.

SandyRentool

No_Offence_Alan said:

kinabalu said:

There is no point Labour 'offering' a Referendum for the Euros. It is not in their gift, for one thing, and it would be to waste a bullet. They will stick for now with their position of seeking a Confirmatory Referendum on any (cue tautology) 'Bad Tory Deal'.

Should we get a General Election before Brexit, however, different story. At this point they will ask themselves the following question -

"If we pivot to Ref/Remain, are we confident that it will significantly increase our chance of winning?"

Answer comes there YES, as IMO it will, and the juicy Socialism/Remain double is ON.

But Corbyn thinks the EU is a capitalist club, not a socialist one.

I prefer to describe it as a hegemony rather than a club.

Stereotomy

MikeSmithson said:

Brom said:

In almost all cases those that say 'Labour will lose my vote if they don't support a 2nd ref" are either not Labour voters or will hold their noses and vote for them in a General Election anyway. The fence sitting remains a wise move.

How do you know? I have voted labour at the last two general elections as a tactical vote in a very tight marginal which flips between elections. Labour will not get my vote next time as long as it is led by Corbyn.

That sounds like a data point agreeing with what Brom says, rather than disagreeing.

Cyclefree

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TGOHF said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

You would vote for Diane Abbott to be PM ?

Would confirm some thoughts on your judgement.

Your reading comprehension skills need some brushing up.

You would vote to make John McDonnell PM ?

Let me help you:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/almost

I could go on - but I suspect we could get through another 30-40 of utter loons, bigots and cranks before you wavered.

That leaves more than 200, the great majority.

They are more appealing than the bigots and loons, whether in their own party or the Tories. But they have one big failing. Cowardice. They couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding. Not a great advertisement for leadership.

Peter_the_Punter

anothernick said:

david_herdson said:

anothernick said:

adamandcat said:

How many lifelong Labour voters will thus remain if Corbyn facilitates Brexit? Count me out!

I agree, but I do not expect Corbyn to facilitate Brexit. He does not have the power to do so, the vast majority of his MPs, his party members and his voters are opposed. His hands are tied, a fact which he has skilfully concealed up to now.

It's been concealed by accident. Corbyn has done little to enable Brexit but has done little to frustrate it either. Indeed, apart from offering his own unicorn - which by accident or design has turned out to be a sound tactical decision - his main contribution has been to stop Labour from having any meaningful policy. Indeed, Labour's policy remains to leave the EU on the basis of their own preferred deal and without a public vote.

Certainly, but no one seriously supposes that Labour could get a different deal from the one the Tories have got. And there is no parliamentary majority for any deal, a fact that will not change even if there is a general election (unless one party obtains a landslide majority - a very unlikely prospect indeed). If (when?) Labour comes to power it will not want to risk allowing itself to be destroyed by Brexit, as the Tories have been, and the only way to avoid that will be a second referendum. So Labour will, eventually, take this route but it will not make an unconditional promise on the subject this week.

Yes, of course. Labour's 'own preferred deal' is a Unicorn, so it doesn't matter whether it comes with or without a public vote, because it ain't gonna happen no matter what.

Stereotomy

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Wait, what do you stand for exactly?

The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.

Oh okay. You do you.

MikeL

What is Damian Green thinking of?

The deficit has just come in at its lowest for what, !8 years? And Debt as % of GDP is now falling steadily.

So why on earth is he proposing new taxes - it's totally unnecessary.

And even if his proposals were the "right thing" to do for inter-generational fairness it is blindingly obvious that they will be politically toxic and cost masses of votes.

Plus they would never get through the Commons even with a Con Majority Govt - many Con MPs would never vote for them.

The whole thing feels like what you would expect to hear from an academic / ivory tower - the Conservatives need to distance themselves as far as possible from anything like this.

matt

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Wait, what do you stand for exactly?

The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.

You're asking for fact and evidence-based policy making. I'm afraid that we're in an era of message sending and emotion based policies where the only common themes are a victim-mentality and a someone else will pay thought process.

TOPPING

matt said:

TOPPING said:

Stereotomy said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can only speak for myself but if Labour were to replace Jeremy Corbyn with almost anyone else in the Parliamentary Labour party, I would be voting Labour in a heartbeat. Committing to a fresh referendum would not improve the chances that I would vote Labour, whether the commitment were given by Jeremy Corbyn or by anyone else.

If you take out the mad Marxists I struggle to find anyone halfway as objectionable in the Labour Party as the Cons ERG-ers. Thing is, a majority of them (Labour Party MPs and members) would hate me and most of what I stand for whereas the ERG-ers probably see me as a class traitor and misguided rather than actually despise me.

So where does that leave my vote with a Starmer-led Labour Party?

With a lot of thinking to do. Of course Cons could make it easier for me by electing Francois or someone similar (Johnson, Raab, etc) as leader.

Wait, what do you stand for exactly?

The application of logic to a whole host of issues, foxhunting for example.

You're asking for fact and evidence-based policy making. I'm afraid that we're in an era of message sending and emotion based policies where the only common themes are a victim-mentality and a someone else will pay thought process.

That is also true.