Cmon folks, some of the quote/replies here are getting unreadable. Trim a bit please :-) When it's quoting a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote, that's excessive on the context front.
I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
>> did the poster yesterday trying to work out why Betfair have >> settled the Change UK share as 2.99% or under when it was >> 3.3% get an answer? It's bugging me too now, though I had >> no money on the market. > > Northern Ireland knocks the vote shares of the GB > parties down when its results come in.
Yep, CUK still seem to me to be over 3% despite that (it shouldn't knock anyone down by 10% of their share anyway).
Setting aside that every other thread header at the moment is "Here's why Brexit smells of wee", did the poster yesterday trying to work out why Betfair have settled the Change UK share as 2.99% or under when it was 3.3% get an answer? It's bugging me too now, though I had no money on the market.
Northern Ireland knocks the vote shares of the GB parties down when its results come in.
Setting aside that every other thread header at the moment is "Here's why Brexit smells of wee", did the poster yesterday trying to work out why Betfair have settled the Change UK share as 2.99% or under when it was 3.3% get an answer? It's bugging me too now, though I had no money on the market.
Northern Ireland knocks the vote shares of the GB parties down when its results come in.
It was UK vote - The Tories and UKIP even contested Northern Ireland, but only got 1.01% between them
> @HYUFD said: > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
> @isam said: > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not > > Exactly
I am also shocked that after his party's performance in 2015 OGH has not learnt a lesson as to what happens to parties that break their promises
There is a lot of confusion about Labour, why aren't they looking after older homeowners with paid off mortgages but instead looking after the interest of the younger people in insecure employment and putting most of their earnings towards rent.
Well the reason is because that is exactly the purpose of the Labour party, it is in the name. Wealthy retired people can afford to vote Conservative or Brexit Party. Young working people who haven't got assets need (and vote for) the Labour party.
I don't really care if the older person with a fully bought house and a generous final salary pension scheme is classed as working class and the struggling hard working younger family living hand to mouth renting isn't. Labour is about looking after the workers, the renters and the struggling. The wealthy older working class don't need the Labour party, hence why they don't vote for it.
> @ah009 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not > > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate
> I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
>
>
>
> The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
>
>
>
> Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
>
>
>
> You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
>
> Exactly
I am also shocked that after his party's performance in 2015 OGH has not learnt a lesson as to what happens to parties that break their promises
"The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit."
That is an assertion, there is little evidence to support it. The facts quoted by OGH, and a number of objective academic studies by respected psephologists, do not give much support to that assertion. Labour voters in general are less exercised by Brexit than Tory voters and the decline in "working class" Labour support (and middle class "liberal intellectual" Tory support) began before the referendum and has many causes of which Brexit is only one.
Can't speak for the other seats. But in Stockton South we had a woefully unpopular MP in the form of James Wharton who not only managed to absent himself from large chunks of the constituency that he wouldn't visit or engage in, but then managed to arrogantly assume he was safe and go off to campaign elsewhere.
To combat this we selected a local GP and crafted a campaign about working for all the people in the constituency. Brexit wasn't really an issue in the campaign - I don't recall it coming up either as we wrote the leaflets or in the weekly campaign meetings.
Here and now Dr Williams gets flack from hard leavers who didn't vote for him. Brexit comes up on the door but I've heard conversations between him and leave voters which are more amiable than you might think. We also did a "Brexitometer" event one Saturday, setting up a board first in Yarm then Thornaby asking the opinions of voters. Whilst we did get some challenging feedback from some, two thirds of the people passing by supported a fresh vote - and that includes marking down walk by or even drive by abusive comments as against...
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > > > > > > > > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > > > > > > > > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not > > > > > > Exactly > > > > I am also shocked that after his party's performance in 2015 OGH has not learnt a lesson as to what happens to parties that break their promises > > And the Tories & Labour last week!
Yes, the Brexit Party is squeezing all the main parties at the moment as the SNP did in 2015 on a similar 'betrayal' narrative and FPTP will just emphasise that further, without PR the Tories would have been wiped out on Sunday and Labour down to just a handful of MEPs
> @HYUFD said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not > > > > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters. > > Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate
And how did those Labour voters vote in the referendum? You seem to be assuming leave is a working class thing. I don't think it is.
I don't really care if the older person with a fully bought house and a generous final salary pension scheme is classed as working class and the struggling hard working younger family living hand to mouth renting isn't. Labour is about looking after the workers, the renters and the struggling. The wealthy older working class don't need the Labour party, hence why they don't vote for it.
Largely thanks to the party that you support you won't have to worry about people with "a generous final salary pension scheme", as by and large such schemes are no longer on offer to most people.
> @Nigelb said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > Very much off topic: > > > I would literally pay double to sit in a train carriage where there was a strongly enforced ban on crisps. > > > > Immediately I sent that, someone's just got on, sat next to me and immediately opened a huge bag of crisps. Fuck my life. > > Probably a PBer... >
> @ah009 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @ah009 said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > > > > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > > > > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > > > > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not > > > > > > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters. > > > > Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate > > And how did those Labour voters vote in the referendum? > You seem to be assuming leave is a working class thing. I don't think it is.
A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain
> @Nigel_Foremain said: > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > @Sandpit said: > > > > > No. Politicians are held to account for their promises by the people at the appropriate time. Dragging politicians through courts is a really bad idea, it’s a very long and slippery slope. > > > > Nonsense. The electorate rarely does any such thing. > > > > It is not difficult; don't lie. If it is deliberately misleading you will face jail. We have a proper separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, so it is not a "slippery slope" at all, quite the contrary. Politicians like Johnson bring our system of government and our so-called democracy into disrepute. > > > > If the electorate choose not to hold politicians to account for lying to them that is up to them. > > If you had a solicitor that lied on significant matters relating to your family, should it just be up to you? No it wouldn't be, she/he would be struck off for malpractice. Politicians need to be held to higher standards. It is a shame people on here seem to think it is OK for them to be liars so long as they have a big support base FFS!
Don't be silly, Politicians have spun, and misled, and lied ever since the time of Themistocles.
Cicero summed it up "We live in the sink of Romulus, not the Republic of Plato."
On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Most Labour seats voted Leave.
If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
> @HYUFD said: > > A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain --------
You say that C1s were split, with no majority, but they voted 52-48 Remain according to IPSOS, so shouldn't you say the same thing about the country as a whole?
> @HYUFD said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
That is the ecological fallacy.
A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
There is a lot of confusion about Labour, why aren't they looking after older homeowners with paid off mortgages but instead looking after the interest of the younger people in insecure employment and putting most of their earnings towards rent.
Well the reason is because that is exactly the purpose of the Labour party, it is in the name. Wealthy retired people can afford to vote Conservative or Brexit Party. Young working people who haven't got assets need (and vote for) the Labour party.
I don't really care if the older person with a fully bought house and a generous final salary pension scheme is classed as working class and the struggling hard working younger family living hand to mouth renting isn't. Labour is about looking after the workers, the renters and the struggling. The wealthy older working class don't need the Labour party, hence why they don't vote for it.
Curious, then, that in 2017 Labour ran on a platform of maintaining the triple lock for the whole of the subsequent parliament (and still wants to do this for the next parliament), protecting the inheritance of the wealthy who need social care, not increasing the pension age further, and maintaining the Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes for wealthy pensioners.
> @HYUFD said: > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide --------------------
Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain.
If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide.
> @TheJezziah said: > The wealthy older working class don't need the Labour party, hence why they don't vote for it.
Pretty patronising and insulting stuff that, implying that working class people who are comfortable in retirement basically don't care a jot about anyone bar themselves.
The last YouGov poll, with Labour on 24% nationally, had support for Labour amongst the 65+ bracket at 12% (and at 19% for 50-64 year olds). Going back to Jan 2013, support for Labour amongst the 60+ bracket was at 34% (just 3% behind the Conservatives 37% share). So once in the not to distant past, Labour still had a reasonable vote amongst older people. What do you think caused them to abandon the party over the intervening 6 years?
> @AlastairMeeks said: > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them. Trying to out-Farage Farage is futile, as the Labour leave position will only be a fudge at best, a pale imitation of Farage's offer. And the Tories under Baker/Johnson/Patel/whomever will also be there.
So we have to back hard remain. Con/BXP form the leave means leave group. On the other side we can have a progressive alliance of Lab/LD/Green plus the nationalists. We will almost certainly lose some seats in hard leave areas - those seats are already lost. But we can gain seats elsewhere, and by aligning with LD/Green/nats ensure that a win for them is a win for us as well.
Corbyn will not do this of course. He is nailed on to win a Labour majority of 704 once his coterie have completed the purge of anyone who voted Labour in 2015 (the Tory Traitors). And having won his landslide he absolutely has to leave the EU or they will block his plan to nationalise National Carriers
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > That is the ecological fallacy. > > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters. > > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > That is the ecological fallacy. > > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters. > > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now. ----------------
To be fair, the ecological fallacy is backwards looking, so relying on it as a predictor of future success is unwise.
Yes, a notionally Leave seat could easily be won on a majority of pro-Remain votes, but that doesn't mean that Labour can afford to lose their Leave voters and at the same time give the others a reason to unite against them.
> @Sandpit said: > I’m a conservative, but more importantly a democrat. > > Should we also be calling for George Osborne to be prosecuted for the pack of lies that came out of the Treasury before the referendum? Of course not, because the place that these disputes get settled is the ballot box. Trying to equate with other professions is fatuous.
Hmmm, I think these are difficult questions, but if Osborne was directing the Treasury to falsify statistics (do we have any evidence of this?), I would be in favour of some way to punish that. The bar for criminal prosecutions should be much higher than, say, the UK Statistics Authority being able to bar/suspend people from holding high office if they ignore warnings about misusing statistics.
But it's going to be very difficult to punish people for making up predictions that turn out to be wrong, however certain it is that the person making the prediction is being dishonest. For example, Gove was clearly lying when he repeatedly claimed to believe during the 2016 referendum campaign that Turkey might be about to join the EU, he obviously knew there was 0% chance of Turkey joining the EU any time soon. But it's difficult to prove. Still, shouldn't we be able to bar him from public office for telling such blatant porkies to further a political campaign?
The idea that the problem is solved at the ballot box doesn't seem to work, if continuously lying through your teeth (see Trump) actually wins elections. It would at least make politicians think twice before telling blatant lies if we enforced some rules, though they would have to be very tightly drawn so it might be impossible.
Compare to the rules we have on political spending - should we not bother with them and say it's all "freedom of speech", and leave it to voters to punish parties/individuals flouting the rules at the ballot box? I don't think so.
> @williamglenn said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > > A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain > -------- > > You say that C1s were split, with no majority, but they voted 52-48 Remain according to IPSOS, so shouldn't you say the same thing about the country as a whole? > > https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
C1s were 51% 49% Leave according to Ashcroft.
C2s and DEs were over 60% Leave though, ABs 57% Remain so only the C1 split mirrored that of the country
> @AlastairMeeks said: > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Corbyn being Brexit's Bessy Mate is killing Labour. I can only assume that he is staking all on being PM - and then needing to have a hand truly free of any ongoing EU restrictions to implement a far grander scheme of Socialism than has been admitted to date. It's a shit-or-bust strategy.
There is a complete lack of evidence in Mike's piece. What remain seats are Labour planning to win? They won't win Scotland with a 2nd ref that is for sure. The truth is Labour could lose plenty of Northern seats to The Brexit Party if they go full 2nd ref, even Corbyn is smart enough to know this. There's no point racking up remain votes in London and remainy cities where you just don't need them.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > That is the ecological fallacy. > > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters. > > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
51 49 Leave seats were mainly in the Home Counties and Tory, Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands were much more strongly Leave.
The Brexit Party won the majority of Leave voters on Sunday, it was the Remain vote largely split between the LDs, Greens and some Labour
> @williamglenn said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > -------------------- > > Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain. > > If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide.
Rubbish, the vast majority of Tory seats voted to put the Brexit Party in first place on Sunday
> On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them.
I think the critical point came in late January 2013, when against the advice of Ed Balls and others, Ed Miliband firmly committed Labour against an EU referendum. Earlier in the month when Labour was polling 44% and 13% ahead of the polls and UKIP were still in single figures and only really taking votes of the Conservatives. After that Labour voters hostile to the EU started to look elsewhere.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Nigel_Foremain said: > > > @OblitusSumMe said: > > > > @Sandpit said: > > > > > > > No. Politicians are held to account for their promises by the people at the appropriate time. Dragging politicians through courts is a really bad idea, it’s a very long and slippery slope. > > > > > > Nonsense. The electorate rarely does any such thing. > > > > > > It is not difficult; don't lie. If it is deliberately misleading you will face jail. We have a proper separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, so it is not a "slippery slope" at all, quite the contrary. Politicians like Johnson bring our system of government and our so-called democracy into disrepute. > > > > > > If the electorate choose not to hold politicians to account for lying to them that is up to them. > > > > If you had a solicitor that lied on significant matters relating to your family, should it just be up to you? No it wouldn't be, she/he would be struck off for malpractice. Politicians need to be held to higher standards. It is a shame people on here seem to think it is OK for them to be liars so long as they have a big support base FFS! > > Don't be silly, Politicians have spun, and misled, and lied ever since the time of Themistocles. > > Cicero summed it up "We live in the sink of Romulus, not the Republic of Plato."
Well, I am a great fan of any rhetorical flourish from Cicero, but he was rather a long time ago, and the Greek form of democracy was rather different to our own pretence at it. Also Greek regulation of commerce was also rather different, and the regulated professions that we have today largely did not exist. So, no it is not silly, unless you are feeble minded. It is a perfectly rational thing to say that what the politicians demand of the demos, should apply equally to them.
> @Wulfrun_Phil said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > > > Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them. > > I think the critical point came in late January 2013, when against the advice of Ed Balls and others, Ed Miliband firmly committed Labour against an EU referendum. Earlier in the month when Labour was polling 44% and 13% ahead of the polls and UKIP were still in single figures and only really taking votes of the Conservatives. After that Labour voters hostile to the EU started to look elsewhere.
Indeed - I remember doorknocking sessions where it was abundantly clear that we needed to change that position and back a referendum
On topic not sure I agree with Mike although the converse may not be true either. At the last election Labour promised to implement Brexit. Corbyn might even have meant it, even if a majority of his MPs were lying. Given that promise (unless you knew they were lying) there was little impetus to vote UKIP instead of Labour and little to choose between the Tories and Labour on Brexit. Labour's lies make the comparison meaningless.
This is a very long way from saying that seats where the Labour vote is weighed rather than counted and Labour MPs have been in place for generations will suddenly become vulnerable to a party led by Farage. I am far from convinced that is going to happen but not for the reasons given by Mike.
Apparently, in the alternative universe that is the modern Conservative Party, saying that enacting a policy that is massively self harming for the country, and therefore by extension, your party, is now considered a "gaff".
Looks like it will be whittled down to 4 fairly quickly. Sajid Javid the main surprise in those not really a runner.
These numbers are likely to be quite fluid, and public declarations of support might not translate into votes in the secret ballot.
I agree Sajid doesn't seem to be cutting through.
His promise of extra police today seems a bit desperate at this point. If that doesn't help I think he is gone. I agree that support for the others will be fluid (as Hunt seems to be finding today) but the more interesting question might be where the supporters of the eliminated candidates go.
> @HYUFD said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > -------------------- > > > > Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain. > > > > If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide. > > Rubbish, the vast majority of Tory seats voted to put the Brexit Party in first place on Sunday
-------
So what do you think happens when a hard Brexit Tory party splits the hard Brexit vote in a place like Eastleigh? Answer: the Lib Dems win.
... a number of objective academic studies by respected psephologists...
What did the other academic studies by respected psephologists say, what did the unacademic studies by respected psephologists say, what did the academic studies by non-respected psephologists say, what did the academic studies by respected non-psephologists say?
Sorry,it's a bugbear of mine. Using the rhetorical technique where one adds qualifiers to the nouns to skew the statement bugs the hell out of me (technical recession, advisory referendum, clean Brexit, etc). Plus the use of the phrase "a number of" shouts out for clarification - how many exactly? One? Billions? What?
This is a ridiculous argument and clearly could only ever have been made by a Remainer.
The reason that voters in Leave seats felt comfortable voting for Labour in 2017 is because Corbyn effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue by promising explicitely to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and that the UK would leave the EU. So did the large majority of Labour MPs in their personal election literature.
As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
The idea that Labour csn simply stop worrying about their Leave voting constituencies is farcical. As plenty of Labour MPs in those constituencies know full well.
> @HYUFD said: > > @ah009 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @ah009 said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side. > > > > > > > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party. > > > > > > > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week. > > > > > > > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not > > > > > > > > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters. > > > > > > Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate > > > > And how did those Labour voters vote in the referendum? > > You seem to be assuming leave is a working class thing. I don't think it is. > > A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain
And final question, if you divide those between Labour and non Labour voters, how do those numbers look?
Here's what I'm getting at: a majority of a majority can be minority.
Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
> > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
That is the ecological fallacy.
A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > On topic. > > This is a ridiculous argument and clearly could only ever have been made by a Remainer. > > The reason that voters in Leave seats felt comfortable voting for Labour in 2017 is because Corbyn effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue by promising explicitely to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and that the UK would leave the EU. So did the large majority of Labour MPs in their personal election literature. > > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving. > > The idea that Labour csn simply stop worrying about their Leave voting constituencies is farcical. As plenty of Labour MPs in those constituencies know full well.
That's what I said (only you put it better) and was told to "get a life"
Talking of Scotland I don't think it is possible to underestimate what effect the melt down in Scottish Labour has on Labour's prospects. The last elected Labour majority, in 2005, had 41 Scottish MPs. In 2017 Labour won 7. On the evidence of the Euros none of those are going to survive. None.
I know Tony Blair managed to win a majority in England but that was Blair who is regarded as a Tory these days. Does anyone seriously believe that Corbyn is going to do likewise? Without a serious contingent of Scottish MPs I don't see how a very definitely left of centre Labour wins or even becomes the largest party.
We live in uncertain times and the centre right breaking between TBP and the Tories might give some unexpected results but Scotland is a disaster for Labour, not a local problem. I have no idea at all what they do about it.
> @isam said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > > > That is the ecological fallacy. > > > > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters. > > > > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now. > > You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split.
The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government.
If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time.
> @HYUFD said: > > @williamglenn said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > -------------------- > > > > Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain. > > > > If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide. > > Rubbish, the vast majority of Tory seats voted to put the Brexit Party in first place on Sunday
Don’t forget that with a PR system there was relatively little incentive for LibDem, Green, CUK and even Labour voters to concentrate on the best placed anti-Tory opponent. The Greens in particular won’t poll at the same level in a GE and most of their votes will transfer to LibDems in Remain seats where the LDs are most likely to challenge the Tories. You can’t simplistically take the EU election results and translate to a GE. A much higher turnout and lower propensity to protest vote are additional reasons.
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving. ---------
Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit?
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving. > --------- > > Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit? >
Presumably those that do also accept that it is a 98% rejection of no deal?
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave? > > Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
Was the threat of an "emergency" budget and the draconian punishments it would unleash if we dared to vote leave just a forecast?
Looks like it will be whittled down to 4 fairly quickly. Sajid Javid the main surprise in those not really a runner.
These numbers are likely to be quite fluid, and public declarations of support might not translate into votes in the secret ballot.
I agree Sajid doesn't seem to be cutting through.
The whittling might be split into two (or even three) groups, if we can class candidates as favouring hard or soft Brexit (and possibly no Brexit at all). If so then as candidates are eliminated, their erstwhile supporters switch only within the same class.
It is the old joke about not needing to run faster than the lion, just faster than your friend.
If so then perhaps Javid is running against Hunt, not against Boris, Raab and Leadsom because the ERG types are not going to vote for him anyway. Likewise the other wing of the party will not support the no dealers.
> As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving. ---------
Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit?
It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since.
> > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> >
>
> > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> >
>
> > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
>
>
> That is the ecological fallacy.
>
>
>
> A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
>
>
> NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
>
> You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split.
The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government.
If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time.
In 2017 voting for Labour or Tory was accepting the referendum result. If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position next time they’ll lose all their leave voters and the Tory Remainers won’t make up the deficit, in my opinion they’ll vote LD
> @RochdalePioneers said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them. Trying to out-Farage Farage is futile, as the Labour leave position will only be a fudge at best, a pale imitation of Farage's offer. And the Tories under Baker/Johnson/Patel/whomever will also be there. > > So we have to back hard remain. Con/BXP form the leave means leave group. On the other side we can have a progressive alliance of Lab/LD/Green plus the nationalists. We will almost certainly lose some seats in hard leave areas - those seats are already lost. But we can gain seats elsewhere, and by aligning with LD/Green/nats ensure that a win for them is a win for us as well. > > Corbyn will not do this of course. He is nailed on to win a Labour majority of 704 once his coterie have completed the purge of anyone who voted Labour in 2015 (the Tory Traitors). And having won his landslide he absolutely has to leave the EU or they will block his plan to nationalise National Carriers
That's probably correct from Labour's point of view. They will gain more votes than they lose form total opposition to Brexit (compared to now), but they have to acknowledge they will lose votes. They just have to be prepared to write off a chunk of their former voters.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since. -------------
It's arguable only if you're being highly tendentious and prepared to ignore the facts. At the time, tactical voting initiatives by Remainers heavily boosted Labour.
> Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
>
> Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
Was the threat of an "emergency" budget and the draconian punishments it would unleash if we dared to vote leave just a forecast?
I remember it being a lot more firm than that...
I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave? > > Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
Osborne was pulling stuff out of his arse, though.
The whittling might be split into two (or even three) groups, if we can class candidates as favouring hard or soft Brexit (and possibly no Brexit at all). If so then as candidates are eliminated, their erstwhile supporters switch only within the same class.
It is the old joke about not needing to run faster than the lion, just faster than your friend.
If so then perhaps Javid is running against Hunt, not against Boris, Raab and Leadsom because the ERG types are not going to vote for him anyway. Likewise the other wing of the party will not support the no dealers.
Yes, that is broadly right although it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, if it's down to three candidates, say Boris, Hunt and McVey with McVey in the lead (for the sake of illustration, not as a forecast!), a Remainer Hunt supporter might switch to Boris in order to get a Boris-McVey final two rather than a Hunt-McVey final two, in the hope that Boris would have a better chance than Hunt of seeing off McVey in the members' ballot.
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the ecological fallacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters. > > > > > > > > > > > > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now. > > > > > > You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split. > > > > The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government. > > > > If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time. > > In 2017 voting for Labour or Tory was accepting the referendum result. If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position next time they’ll lose all their leave voters and the Tory Remainers won’t make up the deficit, in my opinion they’ll vote LD
Labour will not lose "all their leave voters." They may lose a portion of them, but studies suggest that Labour voters are not as motivated by Brexit as Tory voters, so many will stay loyal even if Labour adopts a second referendum policy.
> @Pulpstar said: > I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> @Sean_F said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave? > > > > Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact. > > Osborne was pulling stuff out of his arse, though.
Be nice to have Remainers acknowledge that.
Maybe Cameron will confirm this in his autobiography.
> @DavidL said: > > I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong. > > What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course). --------------
How can you equate the effect of a vote - which is purely about sentiment and nothing else - with the effect of a No Deal Brexit - which has immediate and profound practical consequences? I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people could think you can draw lessons from 2016 to the impact of No Deal.
> @williamglenn said: > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since. > ------------- > > It's arguable only if you're being highly tendentious and prepared to ignore the facts. At the time, tactical voting initiatives by Remainers heavily boosted Labour. > > https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/861509730555928577
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > > @Richard_Tyndall said: > > > > > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving. > --------- > > > Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit? > > It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since.
Not even close. Every single person I know who voted Labour in 2017 is also anti-Brexit. You can question the wisdom of their choice (I did) but you can't overwrite their opinion.
> It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since.
-------------
It's arguable only if you're being highly tendentious and prepared to ignore the facts. At the time, tactical voting initiatives by Remainers heavily boosted Labour.
> @DavidL said: > Talking of Scotland I don't think it is possible to underestimate what effect the melt down in Scottish Labour has on Labour's prospects. The last elected Labour majority, in 2005, had 41 Scottish MPs. In 2017 Labour won 7. On the evidence of the Euros none of those are going to survive. None. > > I know Tony Blair managed to win a majority in England but that was Blair who is regarded as a Tory these days. Does anyone seriously believe that Corbyn is going to do likewise? Without a serious contingent of Scottish MPs I don't see how a very definitely left of centre Labour wins or even becomes the largest party. > > We live in uncertain times and the centre right breaking between TBP and the Tories might give some unexpected results but Scotland is a disaster for Labour, not a local problem. I have no idea at all what they do about it.
Let's look at this with some numbers. Labour won 28 Welsh seats at GE2017, so would need 295 English seats for a UK majority (assuming zero Scottish seats and Sinn Fein as now). That would be a net gain of 68 seats in England compared to 2017.
I think that means they would need to win Rushcliffe, on a swing of just under 7%, or if you allow Labour to make gains in Wales, Dover, on a swing of just over 6% would be sufficient.
If Labour do disproportionately badly in Scotland this reduces the GB swing they would require, so a GB lead of 8% might be enough.
It's certainly possible if the Tories do badly enough.
> @Richard_Nabavi said: > https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1133650377159663618 > > > > Looks like it will be whittled down to 4 fairly quickly. Sajid Javid the main surprise in those not really a runner. > > These numbers are likely to be quite fluid, and public declarations of support might not translate into votes in the secret ballot. > > I agree Sajid doesn't seem to be cutting through.
Hunt drifting to 23/1 on Betfair surprises me. I would guess he will get most of the support from Stewart, Hancock and Javid and therefore looks good for making the final 2.
> I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
>
> What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
--------------
How can you equate the effect of a vote - which is purely about sentiment and nothing else - with the effect of a No Deal Brexit - which has immediate and profound practical consequences? I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people could think you can draw lessons from 2016 to the impact of No Deal.
Simple. The effect of a no deal Brexit will not have profound practical consequences. It will have undesirable consequences and it should be avoided by a sensible deal but it is being grossly exaggerated by the same people who said that the uncertainty caused by a leave vote would do irreparable damage. And they have the same overweening confidence now as they did then.
> @isam said: > > @isam said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > > > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most Labour seats voted Leave. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the ecological fallacy. > > > > > > > > > > > > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters. > > > > > > > > > > > > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now. > > > > > > You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split. > > > > The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government. > > > > If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time. > > In 2017 voting for Labour or Tory was accepting the referendum result. If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position next time they’ll lose all their leave voters and the Tory Remainers won’t make up the deficit, in my opinion they’ll vote LD
No, it really wasn't. People vote for a party for many reason. Your lens and mine is Brexit, but you cannot infer that other people share that lens.
Comments
https://player.fm/series/the-political-party/show-56-lord-daniel-finkelstein
>> did the poster yesterday trying to work out why Betfair have
>> settled the Change UK share as 2.99% or under when it was
>> 3.3% get an answer? It's bugging me too now, though I had
>> no money on the market.
>
> Northern Ireland knocks the vote shares of the GB
> parties down when its results come in.
Yep, CUK still seem to me to be over 3% despite that (it shouldn't knock anyone down by 10% of their share anyway).
https://twitter.com/jarvisdupont/status/1133678270384345088?s=21
https://twitter.com/jarvisdupont/status/1133679100923699200?s=21
> I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
>
> The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
>
> Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
>
> You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
> I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
>
>
>
> The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
>
>
>
> Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
>
>
>
> You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
>
> Exactly
I am also shocked that after his party's performance in 2015 OGH has not learnt a lesson as to what happens to parties that break their promises
Well the reason is because that is exactly the purpose of the Labour party, it is in the name. Wealthy retired people can afford to vote Conservative or Brexit Party. Young working people who haven't got assets need (and vote for) the Labour party.
I don't really care if the older person with a fully bought house and a generous final salary pension scheme is classed as working class and the struggling hard working younger family living hand to mouth renting isn't. Labour is about looking after the workers, the renters and the struggling. The wealthy older working class don't need the Labour party, hence why they don't vote for it.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
> >
> > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
> >
> > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
> >
> > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
>
> The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate
That is an assertion, there is little evidence to support it. The facts quoted by OGH, and a number of objective academic studies by respected psephologists, do not give much support to that assertion. Labour voters in general are less exercised by Brexit than Tory voters and the decline in "working class" Labour support (and middle class "liberal intellectual" Tory support) began before the referendum and has many causes of which Brexit is only one.
To combat this we selected a local GP and crafted a campaign about working for all the people in the constituency. Brexit wasn't really an issue in the campaign - I don't recall it coming up either as we wrote the leaflets or in the weekly campaign meetings.
Here and now Dr Williams gets flack from hard leavers who didn't vote for him. Brexit comes up on the door but I've heard conversations between him and leave voters which are more amiable than you might think. We also did a "Brexitometer" event one Saturday, setting up a board first in Yarm then Thornaby asking the opinions of voters. Whilst we did get some challenging feedback from some, two thirds of the people passing by supported a fresh vote - and that includes marking down walk by or even drive by abusive comments as against...
> https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1133684653058068480
Will the last person to declare their candidacy for leadership of the Conservative Party please turn out the lights?
> > @isam said:
>
> > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
>
> >
>
> > Exactly
>
>
>
> I am also shocked that after his party's performance in 2015 OGH has not learnt a lesson as to what happens to parties that break their promises
>
> And the Tories & Labour last week!
Yes, the Brexit Party is squeezing all the main parties at the moment as the SNP did in 2015 on a similar 'betrayal' narrative and FPTP will just emphasise that further, without PR the Tories would have been wiped out on Sunday and Labour down to just a handful of MEPs
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
> > >
> > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
> > >
> > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
> > >
> > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
> >
> > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
>
> Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate
And how did those Labour voters vote in the referendum?
You seem to be assuming leave is a working class thing. I don't think it is.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1133694479767134208
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1133684653058068480
>
> Will the last person to declare their candidacy for leadership of the Conservative Party please turn out the lights?
Those Tories not running:
1. Ken Clarke
2. Amber Rudd
3. Er........
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > Very much off topic:
> > > I would literally pay double to sit in a train carriage where there was a strongly enforced ban on crisps.
> >
> > Immediately I sent that, someone's just got on, sat next to me and immediately opened a huge bag of crisps. Fuck my life.
>
> Probably a PBer...
>
Only if they were pineapple pizza flavour
> https://twitter.com/His_Grace/status/1133700108053295110
Wasn’t there a pope who was made priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal and pope all on the same day?
Mind you, I think he was a Borgia or suchlike, so perhaps not the best precedent.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @ah009 said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
> > > >
> > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
> > > >
> > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
> > > >
> > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
> > >
> > > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
> >
> > Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate
>
> And how did those Labour voters vote in the referendum?
> You seem to be assuming leave is a working class thing. I don't think it is.
A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain
> > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > @Sandpit said:
> >
> > > No. Politicians are held to account for their promises by the people at the appropriate time. Dragging politicians through courts is a really bad idea, it’s a very long and slippery slope.
> >
> > Nonsense. The electorate rarely does any such thing.
> >
> > It is not difficult; don't lie. If it is deliberately misleading you will face jail. We have a proper separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, so it is not a "slippery slope" at all, quite the contrary. Politicians like Johnson bring our system of government and our so-called democracy into disrepute.
> >
> > If the electorate choose not to hold politicians to account for lying to them that is up to them.
>
> If you had a solicitor that lied on significant matters relating to your family, should it just be up to you? No it wouldn't be, she/he would be struck off for malpractice. Politicians need to be held to higher standards. It is a shame people on here seem to think it is OK for them to be liars so long as they have a big support base FFS!
Don't be silly, Politicians have spun, and misled, and lied ever since the time of Themistocles.
Cicero summed it up "We live in the sink of Romulus, not the Republic of Plato."
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > https://twitter.com/His_Grace/status/1133700108053295110
>
> Wasn’t there a pope who was made priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal and pope all on the same day?
>
> Mind you, I think he was a Borgia or suchlike, so perhaps not the best precedent.
A Borgia PM would make a decent change....
> On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Most Labour seats voted Leave.
If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
> A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain
--------
You say that C1s were split, with no majority, but they voted 52-48 Remain according to IPSOS, so shouldn't you say the same thing about the country as a whole?
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
That is the ecological fallacy.
A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
>
> Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
--------------------
Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain.
If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide.
> The wealthy older working class don't need the Labour party, hence why they don't vote for it.
Pretty patronising and insulting stuff that, implying that working class people who are comfortable in retirement basically don't care a jot about anyone bar themselves.
The last YouGov poll, with Labour on 24% nationally, had support for Labour amongst the 65+ bracket at 12% (and at 19% for 50-64 year olds). Going back to Jan 2013, support for Labour amongst the 60+ bracket was at 34% (just 3% behind the Conservatives 37% share). So once in the not to distant past, Labour still had a reasonable vote amongst older people. What do you think caused them to abandon the party over the intervening 6 years?
> On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them. Trying to out-Farage Farage is futile, as the Labour leave position will only be a fudge at best, a pale imitation of Farage's offer. And the Tories under Baker/Johnson/Patel/whomever will also be there.
So we have to back hard remain. Con/BXP form the leave means leave group. On the other side we can have a progressive alliance of Lab/LD/Green plus the nationalists. We will almost certainly lose some seats in hard leave areas - those seats are already lost. But we can gain seats elsewhere, and by aligning with LD/Green/nats ensure that a win for them is a win for us as well.
Corbyn will not do this of course. He is nailed on to win a Labour majority of 704 once his coterie have completed the purge of anyone who voted Labour in 2015 (the Tory Traitors). And having won his landslide he absolutely has to leave the EU or they will block his plan to nationalise National Carriers
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
> >
> > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
> >
> > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
> That is the ecological fallacy.
>
> A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
> NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
"slitting the vote" - nice typo.....
>
> That is the ecological fallacy.
>
> A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
> NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
----------------
To be fair, the ecological fallacy is backwards looking, so relying on it as a predictor of future success is unwise.
Yes, a notionally Leave seat could easily be won on a majority of pro-Remain votes, but that doesn't mean that Labour can afford to lose their Leave voters and at the same time give the others a reason to unite against them.
> I’m a conservative, but more importantly a democrat.
>
> Should we also be calling for George Osborne to be prosecuted for the pack of lies that came out of the Treasury before the referendum? Of course not, because the place that these disputes get settled is the ballot box. Trying to equate with other professions is fatuous.
Hmmm, I think these are difficult questions, but if Osborne was directing the Treasury to falsify statistics (do we have any evidence of this?), I would be in favour of some way to punish that. The bar for criminal prosecutions should be much higher than, say, the UK Statistics Authority being able to bar/suspend people from holding high office if they ignore warnings about misusing statistics.
But it's going to be very difficult to punish people for making up predictions that turn out to be wrong, however certain it is that the person making the prediction is being dishonest. For example, Gove was clearly lying when he repeatedly claimed to believe during the 2016 referendum campaign that Turkey might be about to join the EU, he obviously knew there was 0% chance of Turkey joining the EU any time soon. But it's difficult to prove. Still, shouldn't we be able to bar him from public office for telling such blatant porkies to further a political campaign?
The idea that the problem is solved at the ballot box doesn't seem to work, if continuously lying through your teeth (see Trump) actually wins elections. It would at least make politicians think twice before telling blatant lies if we enforced some rules, though they would have to be very tightly drawn so it might be impossible.
Compare to the rules we have on political spending - should we not bother with them and say it's all "freedom of speech", and leave it to voters to punish parties/individuals flouting the rules at the ballot box? I don't think so.
> https://twitter.com/isaby/status/1133704375514349569
Gove possibly the only surprise there. Does suggest he is the Remainer's leaver.
> > @HYUFD said:
> >
> > A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain
> --------
>
> You say that C1s were split, with no majority, but they voted 52-48 Remain according to IPSOS, so shouldn't you say the same thing about the country as a whole?
>
> https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum
C1s were 51% 49% Leave according to Ashcroft.
C2s and DEs were over 60% Leave though, ABs 57% Remain so only the C1 split mirrored that of the country
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
> On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
Corbyn being Brexit's Bessy Mate is killing Labour. I can only assume that he is staking all on being PM - and then needing to have a hand truly free of any ongoing EU restrictions to implement a far grander scheme of Socialism than has been admitted to date. It's a shit-or-bust strategy.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
> >
> > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
> >
> > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
> That is the ecological fallacy.
>
> A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
> NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
51 49 Leave seats were mainly in the Home Counties and Tory, Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands were much more strongly Leave.
The Brexit Party won the majority of Leave voters on Sunday, it was the Remain vote largely split between the LDs, Greens and some Labour
> > @HYUFD said:
> >
> > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
> >
> > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
> --------------------
>
> Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain.
>
> If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide.
Rubbish, the vast majority of Tory seats voted to put the Brexit Party in first place on Sunday
> > @Nigel_Foremain said:
> > > @OblitusSumMe said:
> > > > @Sandpit said:
> > >
> > > > No. Politicians are held to account for their promises by the people at the appropriate time. Dragging politicians through courts is a really bad idea, it’s a very long and slippery slope.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. The electorate rarely does any such thing.
> > >
> > > It is not difficult; don't lie. If it is deliberately misleading you will face jail. We have a proper separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature, so it is not a "slippery slope" at all, quite the contrary. Politicians like Johnson bring our system of government and our so-called democracy into disrepute.
> > >
> > > If the electorate choose not to hold politicians to account for lying to them that is up to them.
> >
> > If you had a solicitor that lied on significant matters relating to your family, should it just be up to you? No it wouldn't be, she/he would be struck off for malpractice. Politicians need to be held to higher standards. It is a shame people on here seem to think it is OK for them to be liars so long as they have a big support base FFS!
>
> Don't be silly, Politicians have spun, and misled, and lied ever since the time of Themistocles.
>
> Cicero summed it up "We live in the sink of Romulus, not the Republic of Plato."
Well, I am a great fan of any rhetorical flourish from Cicero, but he was rather a long time ago, and the Greek form of democracy was rather different to our own pretence at it. Also Greek regulation of commerce was also rather different, and the regulated professions that we have today largely did not exist. So, no it is not silly, unless you are feeble minded. It is a perfectly rational thing to say that what the politicians demand of the demos, should apply equally to them.
I agree Sajid doesn't seem to be cutting through.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
>
>
> Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them.
>
> I think the critical point came in late January 2013, when against the advice of Ed Balls and others, Ed Miliband firmly committed Labour against an EU referendum. Earlier in the month when Labour was polling 44% and 13% ahead of the polls and UKIP were still in single figures and only really taking votes of the Conservatives. After that Labour voters hostile to the EU started to look elsewhere.
Indeed - I remember doorknocking sessions where it was abundantly clear that we needed to change that position and back a referendum
This is a very long way from saying that seats where the Labour vote is weighed rather than counted and Labour MPs have been in place for generations will suddenly become vulnerable to a party led by Farage. I am far from convinced that is going to happen but not for the reasons given by Mike.
> https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1133650791837913088?s=20
Apparently, in the alternative universe that is the modern Conservative Party, saying that enacting a policy that is massively self harming for the country, and therefore by extension, your party, is now considered a "gaff".
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
> > >
> > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
> > --------------------
> >
> > Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain.
> >
> > If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide.
>
> Rubbish, the vast majority of Tory seats voted to put the Brexit Party in first place on Sunday
-------
So what do you think happens when a hard Brexit Tory party splits the hard Brexit vote in a place like Eastleigh? Answer: the Lib Dems win.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132847970192371712
Sorry,it's a bugbear of mine. Using the rhetorical technique where one adds qualifiers to the nouns to skew the statement bugs the hell out of me (technical recession, advisory referendum, clean Brexit, etc). Plus the use of the phrase "a number of" shouts out for clarification - how many exactly? One? Billions? What?
Pause
You can hate me now...
This is a ridiculous argument and clearly could only ever have been made by a Remainer.
The reason that voters in Leave seats felt comfortable voting for Labour in 2017 is because Corbyn effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue by promising explicitely to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and that the UK would leave the EU. So did the large majority of Labour MPs in their personal election literature.
As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
The idea that Labour csn simply stop worrying about their Leave voting constituencies is farcical. As plenty of Labour MPs in those constituencies know full well.
> > @ah009 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @ah009 said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > I am sorry OGH but your thread header above based on my post from the previous thread is one of the most complacent I have ever read on PB, indeed it verges on arrogance from the Remainer side.
> > > > >
> > > > > The whole reason Labour held most of its Leave seats at the last general election and indeed gained a few was because it promised to deliver Brexit. Yet 2 years later both the Tories and Labour have still NOT delivered the Brexit Leave voters voted for and until they do both Labour and Tory Leave seats are at risk from the Brexit Party.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence on Sunday in the Euro elections count the Brexit Party swept to victory in Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Wigan and they will very likely repeat that performance in the Peterborough by election on Thursday week.
> > > > >
> > > > > You would have thought Scotland 2015 would have taught Labour a lesson not to ignore its working class vote, clearly not
> > > >
> > > > The post was about Leave constituencies, not working class voters.
> > >
> > > Most of Labour's Leave seats have a largely working class electorate
> >
> > And how did those Labour voters vote in the referendum?
> > You seem to be assuming leave is a working class thing. I don't think it is.
>
> A majority of working class C2 and DE voters voted Leave in the EU referendum, lower middle class C1s were split, only upper middle class ABs were majority Remain
And final question, if you divide those between Labour and non Labour voters, how do those numbers look?
Here's what I'm getting at: a majority of a majority can be minority.
> On topic.
>
> This is a ridiculous argument and clearly could only ever have been made by a Remainer.
>
> The reason that voters in Leave seats felt comfortable voting for Labour in 2017 is because Corbyn effectively neutralised Brexit as an issue by promising explicitely to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and that the UK would leave the EU. So did the large majority of Labour MPs in their personal election literature.
>
> As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
>
> The idea that Labour csn simply stop worrying about their Leave voting constituencies is farcical. As plenty of Labour MPs in those constituencies know full well.
That's what I said (only you put it better) and was told to "get a life"
I know Tony Blair managed to win a majority in England but that was Blair who is regarded as a Tory these days. Does anyone seriously believe that Corbyn is going to do likewise? Without a serious contingent of Scottish MPs I don't see how a very definitely left of centre Labour wins or even becomes the largest party.
We live in uncertain times and the centre right breaking between TBP and the Tories might give some unexpected results but Scotland is a disaster for Labour, not a local problem. I have no idea at all what they do about it.
> > @HYUFD said:
>
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> >
>
> > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> >
>
> > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
>
>
> That is the ecological fallacy.
>
>
>
> A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
>
>
> NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
>
> You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split.
The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government.
If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time.
> > @williamglenn said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > >
> > > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
> > >
> > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
> > --------------------
> >
> > Most Tory seats are currently majority Remain.
> >
> > If we had PR, a hard Brexit position may be best for the Conservatives; under FPTP it is suicide.
>
> Rubbish, the vast majority of Tory seats voted to put the Brexit Party in first place on Sunday
Don’t forget that with a PR system there was relatively little incentive for LibDem, Green, CUK and even Labour voters to concentrate on the best placed anti-Tory opponent. The Greens in particular won’t poll at the same level in a GE and most of their votes will transfer to LibDems in Remain seats where the LDs are most likely to challenge the Tories. You can’t simplistically take the EU election results and translate to a GE. A much higher turnout and lower propensity to protest vote are additional reasons.
>
> As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
---------
Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit?
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
> > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
> ---------
>
> Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit?
>
Presumably those that do also accept that it is a 98% rejection of no deal?
> Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
>
> Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
Was the threat of an "emergency" budget and the draconian punishments it would unleash if we dared to vote leave just a forecast?
I remember it being stated a firmer than that...
It is the old joke about not needing to run faster than the lion, just faster than your friend.
If so then perhaps Javid is running against Hunt, not against Boris, Raab and Leadsom because the ERG types are not going to vote for him anyway. Likewise the other wing of the party will not support the no dealers.
> I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
The Treasury forecasts were based on Leave winning. Nothing to do with leaving the EU.
But you can say what you like about the future.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> Exactly. I also refer to the Ashcroft mega-poll. The voters we have lost to the Brexit Party are largely lost - just as voters to the SNP and UKIP were largely lost before them. Trying to out-Farage Farage is futile, as the Labour leave position will only be a fudge at best, a pale imitation of Farage's offer. And the Tories under Baker/Johnson/Patel/whomever will also be there.
>
> So we have to back hard remain. Con/BXP form the leave means leave group. On the other side we can have a progressive alliance of Lab/LD/Green plus the nationalists. We will almost certainly lose some seats in hard leave areas - those seats are already lost. But we can gain seats elsewhere, and by aligning with LD/Green/nats ensure that a win for them is a win for us as well.
>
> Corbyn will not do this of course. He is nailed on to win a Labour majority of 704 once his coterie have completed the purge of anyone who voted Labour in 2015 (the Tory Traitors). And having won his landslide he absolutely has to leave the EU or they will block his plan to nationalise National Carriers
That's probably correct from Labour's point of view. They will gain more votes than they lose form total opposition to Brexit (compared to now), but they have to acknowledge they will lose votes. They just have to be prepared to write off a chunk of their former voters.
>
> It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since.
-------------
It's arguable only if you're being highly tendentious and prepared to ignore the facts. At the time, tactical voting initiatives by Remainers heavily boosted Labour.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/861509730555928577
What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
> Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
>
> Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
Osborne was pulling stuff out of his arse, though.
> > @isam said:
>
> > > @HYUFD said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> >
>
> > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That is the ecological fallacy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
>
> >
>
> > You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split.
>
>
>
> The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government.
>
>
>
> If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time.
>
> In 2017 voting for Labour or Tory was accepting the referendum result. If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position next time they’ll lose all their leave voters and the Tory Remainers won’t make up the deficit, in my opinion they’ll vote LD
Labour will not lose "all their leave voters." They may lose a portion of them, but studies suggest that Labour voters are not as motivated by Brexit as Tory voters, so many will stay loyal even if Labour adopts a second referendum policy.
> I don't see how there can be a case against any statements predicated on our leaving seeing as we haven't left yet ?
The issue is about statements of what is currently true. Saying "we could save 350m" is not a lie (though it is probably not true either). Saying "we send 350m" is a lie.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > Can't someone take George Osborne to court for all his spurious claims (which have actually been proven in FACT) for what would happen to the economy if we voted to leave?
> >
> > Only someone stupid enough not to be able to distinguish between a forecast and a statement of fact.
>
> Osborne was pulling stuff out of his arse, though.
Be nice to have Remainers acknowledge that.
Maybe Cameron will confirm this in his autobiography.
Maybe.
>
> I think that he and many others had convinced themselves that the economic consequences of a vote to leave would be profound. They expected a much greater run on Sterling than happened, Government borrowing (still much higher then) to become much more expensive and investment to dry up causing a rise in unemployment. I think that they were genuine but wrong.
>
> What I find less forgivable is that the same parties continue to make forecasts of lost GDP over decades and confident predictions of "disaster" in the event of a no deal Brexit. A little bit of self reflection might have been in order. I have long argued that the effects of Brexit for good or ill will be lost in the noise of our economic performance with many other factors affecting the result more significantly. I think I can legitimately say that the evidence to date favours that assessment (which may still prove to be wrong over a longer period of course).
--------------
How can you equate the effect of a vote - which is purely about sentiment and nothing else - with the effect of a No Deal Brexit - which has immediate and profound practical consequences? I find it incomprehensible that intelligent people could think you can draw lessons from 2016 to the impact of No Deal.
> > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> >
> > It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since.
> -------------
>
> It's arguable only if you're being highly tendentious and prepared to ignore the facts. At the time, tactical voting initiatives by Remainers heavily boosted Labour.
>
> https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/861509730555928577
But enough about the MPs....
> > @Richard_Tyndall said:
> >
>
> > As such voters could vote on issues orher than Brexit and so support Labour or Conservative believing they would still support us leaving.
> ---------
>
>
> Does anyone genuinely believe 2017 was an 80% endorsement of Brexit?
>
> It was arguably an 80% acceptance that either the referendum result should be respected, or that it didn't matter too much. Unfortunately things have become much more polarised since.
Not even close. Every single person I know who voted Labour in 2017 is also anti-Brexit.
You can question the wisdom of their choice (I did) but you can't overwrite their opinion.
> Talking of Scotland I don't think it is possible to underestimate what effect the melt down in Scottish Labour has on Labour's prospects. The last elected Labour majority, in 2005, had 41 Scottish MPs. In 2017 Labour won 7. On the evidence of the Euros none of those are going to survive. None.
>
> I know Tony Blair managed to win a majority in England but that was Blair who is regarded as a Tory these days. Does anyone seriously believe that Corbyn is going to do likewise? Without a serious contingent of Scottish MPs I don't see how a very definitely left of centre Labour wins or even becomes the largest party.
>
> We live in uncertain times and the centre right breaking between TBP and the Tories might give some unexpected results but Scotland is a disaster for Labour, not a local problem. I have no idea at all what they do about it.
Let's look at this with some numbers. Labour won 28 Welsh seats at GE2017, so would need 295 English seats for a UK majority (assuming zero Scottish seats and Sinn Fein as now). That would be a net gain of 68 seats in England compared to 2017.
I think that means they would need to win Rushcliffe, on a swing of just under 7%, or if you allow Labour to make gains in Wales, Dover, on a swing of just over 6% would be sufficient.
If Labour do disproportionately badly in Scotland this reduces the GB swing they would require, so a GB lead of 8% might be enough.
It's certainly possible if the Tories do badly enough.
> https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1133650377159663618
>
>
>
> Looks like it will be whittled down to 4 fairly quickly. Sajid Javid the main surprise in those not really a runner.
>
> These numbers are likely to be quite fluid, and public declarations of support might not translate into votes in the secret ballot.
>
> I agree Sajid doesn't seem to be cutting through.
Hunt drifting to 23/1 on Betfair surprises me. I would guess he will get most of the support from Stewart, Hancock and Javid and therefore looks good for making the final 2.
> > @isam said:
>
> > > @HYUFD said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @AlastairMeeks said:
>
> >
>
> > > > On topic, Labour need a principled position on Brexit. Their current chicanery is killing them. Given that their support is overwhelmingly Remain, you would have thought a position that addressed their concerns was dictated.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Most Labour seats voted Leave.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If we had PR a Remain position may be best for Labour, under FPTP it is suicide
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That is the ecological fallacy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A 51:49 Leave seat can be won easily with Remain supporters.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > NB this is much easier with the Brexit party slitting the Leave vote now.
>
> >
>
> > You say that as if the Remain vote isn’t split.
>
>
>
> The 2017 general election proved the willingness of Remain voters to vote tactically for Labour against a hard Brexit government.
>
>
>
> If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position they will be more likely to do so next time.
>
> In 2017 voting for Labour or Tory was accepting the referendum result. If Labour adopt a clearer Remain position next time they’ll lose all their leave voters and the Tory Remainers won’t make up the deficit, in my opinion they’ll vote LD
No, it really wasn't. People vote for a party for many reason. Your lens and mine is Brexit, but you cannot infer that other people share that lens.