the snap general election thread

antrobus

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Hardly a middle way. As immigration is not addressed.

Yes. The single market is based on the Four Freedoms; including the freedom of movement. You can't have a single market without freedom of movement.

antrobus

sevenhills wrote: »

I meant the 3% increase is small, given the Liberal Democrats great by-election performances in recent times....

Richmond Park is the only one in recent times. And by-elections don't necessarily translate to a general election.

The polls appear to say that LD support is currently 9%-11%, compared to 8% at the last GE. (They tend to do better in local elections.) The LDs may well lose seats to the Cons in June.

sevenhills wrote: »

...
People should vote totally differently, to the national polls, but unfortunately voters are sucked in to voting for the best performing party and not their best local candidate.

It will be interesting how co-operation between the parties affects the results. UKIP standing down to help the Tories and the Liberal Democrats and Greens helping each other.

It looks as if the UKIP vote is going to the Conservatives anyway. I doubt that any of the 'deals' between the LDs and Greens will have any effect.

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

There is always a middle way. The EEA is a middle way, there are others that she rejected the day the white paper was issued. In effect the decision was to follow the way she thought the 52% meant by YES. The reason that she now pretends the nation is unified is because she has effectively ignored the views of the 48%.

Clegg and other key Remain campaigners endlessly dismissed a Norway type deal as the worst of all worlds, fax democracy.

Why the change of heart?

PixelPound

antrobus wrote: »

Richmond Park is the only one in recent times. And by-elections don't necessarily translate to a general election.

The polls appear to say that LD support is currently 9%-11%, compared to 8% at the last GE. (They tend to do better in local elections.) The LDs may well lose seats to the Cons in June.

It looks as if the UKIP vote is going to the Conservatives anyway. I doubt that any of the 'deals' between the LDs and Greens will have any effect.

If the LibDems were hoping for a resurgence then they needed to do a lot better at in the locals where they tend to do better in than GE. They will get a higher percentage of the vote than 2015 and will gain a few seats from Labour who themselves may well end up below 200 seats. Unfortunately for the LibDems the strong Conservative vote combined with the collapse in UKIP (who themselves may not stand in Tory/LD marginals) they will lose seats, as you have said.
It looks likely that the LibDems will see an increase in the national share of the vote but a net loss in seats.

westernpromise

Meanwhile Yeremiy Khorbiyn confirms he won't be stepping down after he loses on June 9.

CON gain.

wotsthat

westernpromise wrote: »

Meanwhile Yeremiy Khorbiyn confirms he won't be stepping down after he loses on June 9.

CON gain.

Although the good news for Labour is that this snap election means Corbyn will be 73 at the next election so highly unlikely to still be in charge.

Won't help them much if Diane Abbott takes over but maybe they've learnt something from the Miliband/ Corbyn years.

westernpromise

wotsthat wrote: »

Although the good news for Labour is that this snap election means Corbyn will be 73 at the next election so highly unlikely to still be in charge.

Won't help them much if Diane Abbott takes over but maybe they've learnt something from the Miliband/ Corbyn years.

The game is for him to hang on long enough to push through the rule amendment to reduce the number of leadership nominations required to 5% of the MPs/MSPs. Post Brexit this will mean 5% of the PLP, which looks like it could require only 8 nominators to get, say, John McDonnell or Diane Abbott on the ballot, They then get elected by the same loonies who elected Corbyn.

If that happens then it really is game over for Labour. The sane MPs will have to resign the whip, form a new party and if numerous enough become the official opposition.

The risk of course is that if this new party looks like it has a shout at getting elected, the loonies will then infiltrate it as well.

wotsthat

westernpromise wrote: »

The game is for him to hang on long enough to push through the rule amendment to reduce the number of leadership nominations required to 5% of the MPs/MSPs. Post Brexit this will mean 5% of the PLP, which looks like it could require only 8 nominators to get, say, John McDonnell or Diane Abbott on the ballot, They then get elected by the same loonies who elected Corbyn.

If that happens then it really is game over for Labour. The sane MPs will have to resign the whip, form a new party and if numerous enough become the official opposition.

The risk of course is that if this new party looks like it has a shout at getting elected, the loonies will then infiltrate it as well.

The advantage of forming a new party would be it wouldn't have to be called the Labour party. It's a branding issue - who these days identifies themselves as a worker or working class?

Not sure the loons would follow them over - they seem perfectly happy voting in leaders who will ensure they remain unelectable.

Of course, we might just be over-egging it and this is just the natural cycle of things. Labour have been here before and so have the Tories.

westernpromise

I don't think they expect to remain unelectable. I reckon Momentum and co imagine that politics operates on a Buggins' Turn basis, so next time it's Labour's "turn" to win, we'll get a hard left government.

This of course overlooks the fact that people do actually pay attention to who they're electing, and won't elect a hard left government, ever. Corbyn's rabble are not very sophisticated I'm afraid.

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

The advantage of forming a new party would be it wouldn't have to be called the Labour party. It's a branding issue - who these days identifies themselves as a worker or working class?...

There was (I think) a YouGov poll, that asked who would you vote if Labour split. The answer was that one-third of Labour votes would go with the left, one-third would go with the right, and one-third would go with whichever bore the name of the 'Labour Party'.

So the brand is worth something. Even if only in the short term. So, if it comes to it, they will fight over it.

wotsthat wrote: »

...
Not sure the loons would follow them over - they seem perfectly happy voting in leaders who will ensure they remain unelectable.

Of course, we might just be over-egging it and this is just the natural cycle of things. Labour have been here before and so have the Tories.

The future is uncertain.:)