UK General Election 2017

[ProfessorDavey]

Goof points but I think given that the Tories will be standing on a manifesto to leave ...

I don't doubt that the Tories will stand on a manifesto to leave, the question is whether they stand on a soft or hard brexit manifesto. I suspect they won't be overt, but will place emphasis on the economy, and once elected construe that as a mandate to protect single market membership.

, unless the sitting MP is willing to say that they are going to rebel, their previous stance will be useless. So where there was a Remain Tory and a Remain Lib Dem in a marginal seat that is pro Remain , the Remain Tory may well lose because they will be committed to Brexit.

But a remain tory in a remain constituency is going to be better placed to see off a lib-dem challenge than a leave tory in a remain constituency.

I can already see this effect in my own constituency - over 60% remain, ardent leave tory MP - LibDems came within a couple of thousand of winning in 2010 - they are really hopeful. They wouldn't have anything like the ammunition were they up against a remain Tory. I don't think they'll win, by the way, but there are other seats where the margins are much closer.

[Jack Knave]

Interesting to see what if any effect the possibility of people campaigning while being subject to investigation for election fraud might have. There is a perfectly sensible theory that this was called to avoid a slow bleed of the majority to by elections being called because of the CPS.

One reporter on C4 claims that May has had a term on a snap election viability since last autumn. This means she has been lying about it to try to keep the other parties off their guard. So this scandal of expenses has probably just nudge it a bit.

[Jack Knave]

Point of information:

Have the boundary commission changes come into effect yet?

No.

[Jack Knave]

Except I am also a long time Labour supporter who has at various points felt let down by the party - but I have never before felt that they are completely incompetent, and that in my opinion is the issue.

Corbyn's policies for the most part are fine. But (and it's a bloody humungous but) he doesn't convince me that he can carry them out - and if he doesn't convince the likes of me then they don't stand a chance. And please don't accuse me of being in thrall to MSM because I am not, I am fully aware of the depths they will stoop to in order to further their narrative and agenda.

I think many Labour MPs are relatively ok with his ideas or policies etc. but they, like you, don't think much of him as a leader. What they should have done was to have agreed with him that he should be replaced by a similarly Left positioned person but who could actually leader and run the party, and who has some charisma. This would satisfy his core supporters and allow many of the MPs get behind the leader and help run the shadow cabinet, and, thereby, provide a decent opposition party.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think many Labour MPs are relatively ok with his ideas or policies etc. but they, like you, don't think much of him as a leader. What they should have done was to have agreed with him that he should be replaced by a similarly Left positioned person but who could actually leader and run the party, and who has some charisma. This would satisfy his core supporters and allow many of the MPs get behind the leader and help run the shadow cabinet, and, thereby, provide a decent opposition party.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Sure Corbyn has absolutely no leadership skills, but there is another issue which wouldn't be altered merely by a change to someone with greater leadership abilities, but of a similar political persuasion.

That issue is fundamentally one of principle vs pragmatism. One of the most frustrating aspects to me about the current Labour party (and I've seen this amongst loads of hard left colleagues in the past) is that actually winning elections seems to be largely irrelevant, as that always involves compromise and pragmatism which means sacrificing a level of principle. The current Labour leadership are clearly of the view that being true to their principles is more important than winning elections. And that puts them at odds with plenty in the parliamentary party (even on the left) who believe that politics is about making a difference and you can only make a difference with power, so winning elections is key.

And don't forget that plenty in the party become used to being in power, through 1997 to 2010, and for them being reduced to an idealogical campaign group (and one that isn't even well led as an idealogical campaign group) must be really painful.

[Jack Knave]

Just because the Tories have a poll lead doesn't mean that the country isn't split down the middle. Don't forget that even in the recent polls the Tories are polling in the low 40%s so just on that basis the country is split.

But of course the main reason why the country is more split and fractured that at any time I can remember is because of Brexit - 10 months on from the referendum and the country is just as split as it was last June. Polling has shown no significant shift from the virtually 50:50 split in the vote - indeed if anything the difference has narrowed from the 51.9%:48.1% split in the actual referendum. Usually, once a decision is made there is a shift in favour of that decision, but there is no evidence of that in relation to Brexit - we remain as split as we were last year.

I heard that the % of people saying just get on with Brexit is around 60%.

However, I reckon this GE will split the country even more. The same polarized extremes and abuses we saw in the referendum will surface once more in the coming weeks. I also think that as Labour, and may be some others, pull the focus onto domestic issues (and the Tories failings with the NHS etc.) and less so on the Brexit issue the Tories share of the votes will fall. The other problem for May here is that people will want more details about what she sees as being the right Brexit deal. The Remoaners will keep pushing the idea that she will take them over a cliff.

[Jack Knave]

Because a 'softer' brexit is acceptable to more people than a hard one. I think this may well be the agenda here - effectively to shift the focus of brexit toward protection of the economy (clearly core Tory territory) and thereby use a general election victory as a mandate to negotiate a brexit that retains membership of the single market.

And what does soft mean in this context?

[ProfessorDavey]

I heard that the % of people saying just get on with Brexit is around 60%.

There has been polling every couple of weeks (at least) by yougov asking:

'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?'

The proportions opting for 'right' and 'wrong' have barely moved since June and have remained pretty well identical to the actual result.

So for example just a couple of weeks (excluding don't knows) 50.6% said 'right', 49.4% said 'wrong'

We remain completely split - there is no evidence that remainers are coming around to thinking that brexit is a good idea - or indeed significant 'buyers regret' from brexiteers.

[Jack Knave]

it could, though, lead to a larger grouping in the Tory party who are for Hard Brexit, since we don't know the opinions of those who might gain seats. A larger % block, even if May gets more numbers of soft Brexiteers, could cause more problems than might be imagined. I also wonder what the phrasing in the manifesto will be because there will be pressure from some to have hard Brexit explicit in it. Even with a fudge, which is the most likely thing, I would expect the language to at least acknowledge that hard Brexit is in some ways more than acceptable.

The manifestos of each of the parties are going to be interesting. In recent years they have taken on an almost biblical significances than in past elections where they were almost seen as a joke and not worth the paper they were written on.

[ProfessorDavey]

And what does soft mean in this context?

Leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union.

That would be a pragmatic solution that would be the least unacceptable to the greater number of people.

[Jack Knave]

I don't doubt it is a gamble.

Clearly May wants the outcome of the election to strengthen her brexit position - point is that I don't think we know what that position is yet. My gut suggests that she is a very reluctant hard brexiteer, and therefore that she feels that the election will strengthen her ability to shift to a softer brexit position. I may, of course, be completely wrong on this, but I would have thought that going to the country on a hard brexit manifesto is a very risky strategy, given that the last thing that 48% wanted was hard brexit and there is a big chunk of the 52% that aren't obsessed by immigration and see the economy as more important.

You may have a point. I wonder what May told Nissan? (was it Nissan, some car manufacturer).

[Jack Knave]

I think that is misunderstanding the issue. Firstly I doubt there is much correlation between the stance of existing Tory MPs and the leave/remain proportions of their constituency electorate. For example my own MP is a leaver, yet my constituency voted solidly to remain. Perhaps the most ardent Tory remainer (Anna Soubry) represents a constituency that voted solidly out. Voters won't get a choice of Tory in their constituency, just one.

Secondly the LibDems are likely to have the best chance of taking Tory seats in pro-remain areas where the sitting MP is a Leaver. We've already seen that in Richmond. And there are a good number of seats of that nature. So the effect of a LibDem recovery is likely to be a reduction in pro-brexit tories, not an increase.

That conflict of issues is going to be interesting. Where will the voters loyalty lie? With the party or their wishes on where they want the UK to be with respect to the EU.

[Jack Knave]

Good points but I think given that the Tories will be standing on a manifesto to leave, unless the sitting MP is willing to say that they are going to rebel, their previous stance will be useless. So where there was a Remain Tory and a Remain Lib Dem in a marginal seat that is pro Remain , the Remain Tory may well lose because they will be committed to Brexit.

Which is why I think that the LibDums will do particularly well in this because they have a made a firm stance of where they are in the Brexit issue. Could it mean more than 50 seats for them?

[Nearly Sane]

Which is why I think that the LibDums will do particularly well in this because they have a made a firm stance of where they are in the Brexit issue. Could it mean more than 50 seats for them?

I think that needs swings of by election proportions and while this is certainly going to be odd, I don't see that hapoening, though will be interested in how the polls start moving. Think spread more like 20 - 25.


Quick check of market and it's thinking around 31

[Jack Knave]

I'm not sure that is entirely true. Sure Corbyn has absolutely no leadership skills, but there is another issue which wouldn't be altered merely by a change to someone with greater leadership abilities, but of a similar political persuasion.

That issue is fundamentally one of principle vs pragmatism. One of the most frustrating aspects to me about the current Labour party (and I've seen this amongst loads of hard left colleagues in the past) is that actually winning elections seems to be largely irrelevant, as that always involves compromise and pragmatism which means sacrificing a level of principle. The current Labour leadership are clearly of the view that being true to their principles is more important than winning elections. And that puts them at odds with plenty in the parliamentary party (even on the left) who believe that politics is about making a difference and you can only make a difference with power, so winning elections is key.

And don't forget that plenty in the party become used to being in power, through 1997 to 2010, and for them being reduced to an idealogical campaign group (and one that isn't even well led as an idealogical campaign group) must be really painful.

So they expect others to implement their ideas and policies, because they are too scared to do it themselves, people who do not hold to their convictions and ideologies??  What a load of spineless wankers!!!

[Jack Knave]

There has been polling every couple of weeks (at least) by yougov asking:

'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?'

The proportions opting for 'right' and 'wrong' have barely moved since June and have remained pretty well identical to the actual result.

So for example just a couple of weeks (excluding don't knows) 50.6% said 'right', 49.4% said 'wrong'

We remain completely split - there is no evidence that remainers are coming around to thinking that brexit is a good idea - or indeed significant 'buyers regret' from brexiteers.

Isn't that more of an issue of how it has been handled than Brexit itself?

[Jack Knave]

Leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union.

That would be a pragmatic solution that would be the least unacceptable to the greater number of people.

That wouldn't be Brexit as set out by the Vote Leave group of taking control. And both sides said that a vote to leave was a vote to cease being a member of the single market. And both the Leave teams talked about making our own trade deals which mean not being part of the customs union.

May has said as well that these two are not viable to her plan so she, so far, has indicated that she is for what is called a hard Brexit. But of course she has been shown to be a lying bitch.

[jakswan]

I don't doubt that the Tories will stand on a manifesto to leave, the question is whether they stand on a soft or hard brexit manifesto. I suspect they won't be overt, but will place emphasis on the economy, and once elected construe that as a mandate to protect single market membership.

I think hard or soft Brexit are rendered meaningless by spin, its not absolute, the hardest Brexit would be out with no deal, the softest would be out but staying in single market/custom union. The actual middle ground is free trade deal with freedom of movement of labour shall we call this equal Brexit?

I think Prof could be onto something, an equal Brexit would be a hard sell in the extremes of the Tory Party, a large Tory majority and those extremes become irrelevant. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Glimmer of Hope,

I see some Labour supporters on here looking for a Leader, so what would that Leader be, a Winston, a Wilson, a Thatcher, a Blair.

Not me, I don't care who leads, as long as they are as one voice, that Corbyn fellow cares not a jot, as long as you fight for injustice, against poverty and the fellowship of man.

So carrying on looking for a strong leader, me, I would rather look for a party that has the good of the country at heart.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

That wouldn't be Brexit as set out by the Vote Leave group of taking control.

Wrong - it would be absolutely in line with the official leave campaign's official manifesto which said (I quote):

'There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.'

The only free trade zone that fits that description is the single market/customs union - so the manifesto was clear that we would still be part of the single market/customs union.

[ProfessorDavey]

And both sides said that a vote to leave was a vote to cease being a member of the single market. And both the Leave teams talked about making our own trade deals which mean not being part of the customs union.

In which case surely leaving the single market and customs union would have been clearly stated in their manifesto. But it wasn't.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Go on - show me where in their manifesto it says we would leave the single market or customs union. It doesn't, quite the reverse - there is a very clear implication that we will remain part of both.

[Jack Knave]

Wrong - it would be absolutely in line with the official leave campaign's official manifesto which said (I quote):

'There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.'

The only free trade zone that fits that description is the single market/customs union - so the manifesto was clear that we would still be part of the single market/customs union.

They said more than that!!!

[Jack Knave]

In which case surely leaving the single market and customs union would have been clearly stated in their manifesto. But it wasn't.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Go on - show me where in their manifesto it says we would leave the single market or customs union. It doesn't, quite the reverse - there is a very clear implication that we will remain part of both.

That's a fake.

What they said in their talks etc. are what count.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's a fake.

In what way is it a fake - that is the official manifesto of Vote Leave, the official leave campaign in the referendum.

What they said in their talks etc. are what count.

No they aren't - a campaign is based on their manifesto, which turned out to be a pack of lies from start to end.

How about this one (again direct quote from their manifesto):

'we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave' (my emphasis).

How's that going then - triggering article 50 was the start of the legal process to leave, so where is the new deal that has clearly been negotiated? Must have missed that one. Oh, my mistake, just another outright lie.

[ProfessorDavey]

They said more than that!!!

That's what they said in their official manifesto.

So JK, what exactly is this free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border that we will still be part of - note not have access to, but still be part of - i.e. we were part of when members of the EU and remain part of when we leave.