-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
BREXIT |OT3| I'd Rather Be Inert in a Ditch
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
Hopefully new head of "Ministry of Freedom" isn't in the job long
(And this in an interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer, because of course that's where we want the equalities minister giving interviews about her intentions)
Whatever happens it should demolish whatever message she's trying to get across. If anything the LD will be exposed as a sham remain supporting party who don't really want to stop Brexit and instead want to blame everyone else for the situation by finger wagging "we told you so" nonsense.
More needs to be made about No.10 sitting on the Russia report. Boris has clearly been watching Trump in action and took some notes.
This is sinister as fuck - definately leads on from the stuff about them trialling "culture wars" talking points at focus groups.
Culture wars is all they have left at this point. They need that internet nazi vote
This is exactly why Swinson's pathetic and completely empty deployment of identity politics is so fucking disgusting. It just plays straight into the right wing narrative about it.
What about the other party that has been in government for the last three years, the DUP. /s
Harman has withdrawn, which means there are 89 votes up for grabs. Hoyle only needs about half of them, so I guess he clinches it in the next round.
That posts about that tactical voting website are so bad I wouldn't be surprised if it came out after the election that some right-wing lobby funded it.
I don't like the LibDem shift to the right since Clegg either, but it is a solid fact that most of the LibDem target seats are Tory-held.
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
However, what matters more is whether they do collateral damage in Lab/Con marginals by taking Labour votes - or whether they help Labour by taking Con votes (assuming the LibDems increase their vote share at all). Not everyone is tactical, and LibDems will grab a lot of votes in non-target seats. Unfortunately, I think the evidence suggests that the LibDems are getting more Hard-remain Blairite Labour defectors than Liberal-Tory defectors.
If tactical voting works, then it wouldn't be so bad. LD would gain their Tory marginals but Labour would keep votes in their Tory marginals - though the LibDems lying tactical vote propaganda will fuck this up.
So, I had a go on a swingometer:
Let's assume a 15% surge in the LD vote, with 10% of it coming from Labour and 5% coming from Tories. Apply that to all constituencies because I'm assuming perfectly spherical voters travelling in a Brexit.
Oh fuck, Con majority of 2.
LibDems gain 19 seats, but Labour lose 34 the Tories gain 24. Most LD gains are from Tories, but the Tory gains are all from Labour.
But wait, what if attacking Corbyn means LD get 10% of their surge from Con voters and just 5% from Labour (unlikely, but a man can hope):
Hung parliament, Lab are biggest party and need 36 for a win. SNP are 35. LD are 33. You'd need a 3-way deal to create a stable government.
And I'm discounting the Brexit party. If we assume 15 % LD surge (back to the original 10 from Lab/5 Con) and a 12% BRX surge (10 from Con/2 Lab), we get:
Labour are the biggest party but short by 55. LD on 43 and SNP on 50. Need a 3-way deal again.
The swing between Lab and Con will also be very important. I've assumed there's zero direct vote switching between Lab and Con and used the 2017 vote as a base, but that's not realistic. I don't know if Boris will do better than May at campaigning (he probably will) or if the threat of a populist Right-wing disaster-capitalist government will energise the socialist vote (it probably will).
TL;DR - It's fucking complicated. We're hopefully getting another hung parliament, where Labour will need a 3-way deal with LD and SNP to govern.
LibDems are likely to have a fairly neutral effect, gaining seats from Tories, but causing Labour to lose seats to the Tories.
Local effects and tactical voting will make all the difference, and the LibDems should be telling their no-hoper candidates to stop fucking around with ludicrous claims.
They're called the Lib Dems, and they prefer "Centrist Melts".
I saw someone call it 'Centrist Analytica' which is pretty good
edit
I still don't understand how the hell people take "Our policy is to revoke Article 50 immediately" and somehow twist that to "The Lib Dems don't actually want to stop Brexit they want it to happen"
I don't know how they could be any more explicitly remain.
For all the things you can say about the Lib Dems, "They actually want Brexit" sure as hell isn't one of them.
You can promise the world when you know you have fuck all chance of delivering on it.
And that somehow means "The Lib Dems are secretly Pro-Brexit and want it to happen" ?
I don't think they're pro-Brexit, but I think they don't give a shit about it happening if they get some extra seats along the way.
She's right to kick up a fuss, as was Swinson
Framing the election as a choice between Corbyn and Johnson just reinforces the two-party system of old that is much maligned.
Especially when we're likely to be heading for a hung parliament - which will require one of the smaller parties to assist.
Last edited:
I dunno if you can assume the lib dems would even do a confidence and supply arrangement with labour, they've got the numbers they have right now in parliament by mostly taking Tories and anti Corbyn labour folk. Infact like Centrists always do they are even more hostile to anyone on the left than they are on the right. I also don't see them backing anything that would give us our Indy ref, which SNP votes are dependent on. The lib dems entire USP in Scotland is "the SNP have no mandate"...even though they've won repeatedly with a clause in their manifesto for an Indy ref due to brexit so I dunno what they think mandate means.
Half of her whole selling point to the labour switchers is shitting on Corbyn and anything or anyone on the left (while somehow saying they are for social democracy lol). I cannot see them working with labour in anyway, even if they did decide to try it I think there are too many of their MPs and candidates that are anti left/corbyn lab refugees and Tories who would be inclined to rebel imo.
I hope/sorta have a feeling that they won't get the amount of votes they are expecting, they lost seats the last time they were supposed to surge (during 'cleggmania') and are starting from a horrible position. If I was to totally guess they'll get under 22ish seats, so an increase but not the near total return to pre 2015 levels they are expecting.
Like I said that's just my gut guess and I appreciate it's out there but yeah.
Yeah I don't know how you can have Swinson and not Sturgeon in your debates. I mean I do know, but you can at least pretend you care about Scotland.
Maybe I just don't have the big brain required to understand political strategy but I don't buy into the argument that attacking Labour somehow lures Tory voters to the Lib Dems. Distancing or distinguishing yourselves from them sure. Saying you won't go into a coalition with Labour may be what secures a Con to LD vote. But saying Corbyn is a national security threat, that they're helping to get Brexit over the line etc. is that what's going to convince a Conservative voter? No. The former example is probably an affirmation of what they already think and I don't see how that makes them shift to a third party. But it does decrease the Labour vote and aims to swing Labour voters towards lib dems. Then there's putting prominent candidates in seats with narrow Labour majorities (and claiming to be the sane option). Does that hurt the Tories or Labour more?
that sounds dangerously like "censoring of what it's acceptable to say" liz
wouldn't want to get involved with identity politics would you
Nobody in the small parties will be prime minister, there should be a head to head debate aswell as the everyone and their dog debate.
If it is about chance of being pm, then I would just give Johnson an hour. He is the only realistic pm looking at the polls.
Only for a single one-off debate maybe. The fact is 92% of the electorate can't vote for her party even if they wanted to.
Probably a slightly bad thing.
In theory it shouldn't matter to any noticeable extent because the speaker is supposed to be like a neutral referee. However, Bercow's decisions during the last few years generally tilted in favour of parliament having more power and more chance to debate things. That's what the speaker is meant to do, but it's far from guaranteed that another speaker would have made the same choices.
How the new speaker - whoever he will be - makes that kind of big decision will be critical, and although we can guess Hoyle will be more inclined to accommodate the government than to empower parliament, we won't really know that until they're in the chair.
Hoyle's speech from earlier:
- says backbenchers have a right to be heard and need support of the speaker
- there should be no pecking order, everyone should be equal
- he believes he is trusted, fair and has a good track record as deputy speaker
- he wants to continue reforming
- wants to increase security for MPs, their family and staff
- says backbenchers have a right to be heard and need support of the speaker
- there should be no pecking order, everyone should be equal
- he believes he is trusted, fair and has a good track record as deputy speaker
- he wants to continue reforming
- wants to increase security for MPs, their family and staff
Last edited:
- Status