Will the Brexit Broadcast Corporation be putting Nick Boles vote for the Lib Dems as headline news or is it the case they only bother if it’s a vote for Bozo .
The Boris Farage Pact a hugely significant moment in this campaign. It will either help Brexit Party and Conservatives or backfire. Inside a bubble where you can’t see the difference anyway between Boris Tories and Brexit Party under Farage, this makes little difference other than idea it wont split the Brexit vote. So very good news.
On the other hand outside that bubble where Farage is very right of centre and his love for No Deal Brexit extreme, how many BP votes hinged on not being Tory, how many Tory votes hinged on not being Farage?
The guardian if you haven’t read it, can’t stop laughing at Farage for his climb down.
“If this was supposed to be a rally, you’d have to call it Triumph of the Willy. Here was a guy who’d spent 10 days bullishly making Johnson an offer he couldn’t refuse, (not forgetting a 10 point demolition of Boris deal, a deal that hasn’t changed a jot) it seems the PM does not negotiate with Faragists. The Brexit party leader is one of those hapless movie villains who tells a millionaire he’s kidnapped his wife, and the millionaire goes – great, you can keep her.”
I’m not so sure the Guardian has got this right, their position takes people on their word about what happened. Nigel said he got his assurances from a video in a Boris tweet, but with Tice and Farage both offered peerages there’s clearly been backroom discussions going on, so I agree with the BP members who feel there’s been a backroom meeting and stitch up.
“Country before party” was the Brexit line to take. Just one syllable too many.
The Boris Farage Pact a hugely significant moment in this campaign. It will either help Brexit Party and Conservatives or backfire. Inside a bubble where you can’t see the difference anyway between Boris Tories and Brexit Party under Farage, this makes little difference other than idea it wont split the Brexit vote. So very good news.
On the other hand outside that bubble where Farage is very right of centre and his love for No Deal Brexit extreme, how many BP votes hinged on not being Tory, how many Tory votes hinged on not being Farage?
The guardian if you haven’t read it, can’t stop laughing at Farage for his climb down.
“If this was supposed to be a rally, you’d have to call it Triumph of the Willy. Here was a guy who’d spent 10 days bullishly making Johnson an offer he couldn’t refuse, (not forgetting a 10 point demolition of Boris deal, a deal that hasn’t changed a jot) it seems the PM does not negotiate with Faragists. The Brexit party leader is one of those hapless movie villains who tells a millionaire he’s kidnapped his wife, and the millionaire goes – great, you can keep her.”
I’m not so sure the Guardian has got this right, their position takes people on their word about what happened. Nigel said he got his assurances from a video in a Boris tweet, but with Tice and Farage both offered peerages there’s clearly been backroom discussions going on, so I agree with the BP members who feel there’s been a backroom meeting and stitch up.
“Country before party” was the Brexit line to take. Just one syllable too many.
"Country be party"? Well, it's what a lot of Tories and Labour people think, but its very poor grammar.
LAB remains a real threat! Lots of people on benefits and those 'rich through mummy and daddy' who think that voting LAB demonstrates a social conscience!
Beware the CORBYN
That is the right message for PB Tories to keep repeating.
I endorse this AVE IT
Tory rampers for labour are going to be a frequent feature on here and in the media they need to create the image of labour being a risk to help them over the line.
Relevant to this thread, a plot I quickly threw together showing the share of Tory and Labour in 2017 (crosses) and 2019 (circles). If I have time I'll try to add trendlines...
I would echo the sentiments of the OP. The Tories were badly burnt last election, yet there is no similarity between this election and that one. 'Look what happened in 2017' is pure wishful thinking, and there is simply no evidence to suggest it could possibly happen again - for all sorts of reasons. As someone else said, Labour got over 40% and STILL lost the election.
Two B's - Boris & Brexit - will see the Tories home, comfortably.
The next important moment is when the candidate lists are revealed and which labour seats have TBP fighting the election
Do not be surprised if some or more marginals do not have any TBP representation
I expect Arron Banks and Farage are in further talks over this
Why would the Brexit Party contest Kensington?
If they are only not standing on Tory held seats, why would they not contest Kensington? If they are also not going to be standing in seats the Tories are seeking to take, there will be many more to stand down in, and Farage's ego to sooth about why they are doing so.
I am of similar view to Header. As a Labour supporter if you offered me 225 seats right now I would whisk you off to the seaside and buy you a large cod and chips.
The Boris Farage Pact a hugely significant moment in this campaign. It will either help Brexit Party and Conservatives or backfire. Inside a bubble where you can’t see the difference anyway between Boris Tories and Brexit Party under Farage, this makes little difference other than idea it wont split the Brexit vote. So very good news.
On the other hand outside that bubble where Farage is very right of centre and his love for No Deal Brexit extreme, how many BP votes hinged on not being Tory, how many Tory votes hinged on not being Farage?
The guardian if you haven’t read it, can’t stop laughing at Farage for his climb down.
“If this was supposed to be a rally, you’d have to call it Triumph of the Willy. Here was a guy who’d spent 10 days bullishly making Johnson an offer he couldn’t refuse, (not forgetting a 10 point demolition of Boris deal, a deal that hasn’t changed a jot) it seems the PM does not negotiate with Faragists. The Brexit party leader is one of those hapless movie villains who tells a millionaire he’s kidnapped his wife, and the millionaire goes – great, you can keep her.”
I’m not so sure the Guardian has got this right, their position takes people on their word about what happened. Nigel said he got his assurances from a video in a Boris tweet, but with Tice and Farage both offered peerages there’s clearly been backroom discussions going on, so I agree with the BP members who feel there’s been a backroom meeting and stitch up.
“Country before party” was the Brexit line to take. Just one syllable too many.
The next important moment is when the candidate lists are revealed and which labour seats have TBP fighting the election
Do not be surprised if some or more marginals do not have any TBP representation
I expect Arron Banks and Farage are in further talks over this
Why would the Brexit Party contest Kensington?
If they are only not standing on Tory held seats, why would they not contest Kensington? If they are also not going to be standing in seats the Tories are seeking to take, there will be many more to stand down in, and Farage's ego to sooth about why they are doing so.
The Boris Farage Pact a hugely significant moment in this campaign. It will either help Brexit Party and Conservatives or backfire. Inside a bubble where you can’t see the difference anyway between Boris Tories and Brexit Party under Farage, this makes little difference other than idea it wont split the Brexit vote. So very good news.
On the other hand outside that bubble where Farage is very right of centre and his love for No Deal Brexit extreme, how many BP votes hinged on not being Tory, how many Tory votes hinged on not being Farage?
The guardian if you haven’t read it, can’t stop laughing at Farage for his climb down.
“If this was supposed to be a rally, you’d have to call it Triumph of the Willy. Here was a guy who’d spent 10 days bullishly making Johnson an offer he couldn’t refuse, (not forgetting a 10 point demolition of Boris deal, a deal that hasn’t changed a jot) it seems the PM does not negotiate with Faragists. The Brexit party leader is one of those hapless movie villains who tells a millionaire he’s kidnapped his wife, and the millionaire goes – great, you can keep her.”
I’m not so sure the Guardian has got this right, their position takes people on their word about what happened. Nigel said he got his assurances from a video in a Boris tweet, but with Tice and Farage both offered peerages there’s clearly been backroom discussions going on, so I agree with the BP members who feel there’s been a backroom meeting and stitch up.
“Country before party” was the Brexit line to take. Just one syllable too many.
"Count Before Party"? Advice to complacent Remainers in 2016
There is lot more to politics than crunching numbers (I know I am saying this on the wrong blog 😏) There’s what is happening to the message that changes crunched numbers. The actual politics of getting messages cutting through.The Brexit Pact instantly energised the LibDem and Labour campaigns and messaging did it not? It’s mana to getting message across about how Tories been taken over by blukip.
most important thing is blurring the credibility of BP and Tory as separate parties, how many more votes for LibDems and for Labour does this blurring yield over like a magic vote tree? It may look like the same point made against last weeks Remain Alliance: what does a green or LibDem voter do if the candidate of the other party says or stands for something they don’t like, why are they separate parties anyway, but on Brexit Pact side of the fence this can prove far more toxic because number of moderate Torys being chased by LibDems runs into millions not just thousands. BP may lose votes to the Conservatives from this loss of credibility, but Tories will lose votes to the centre, those who see themselves as Liberal Conservatives, Brexit Pact and idea Tory party has swallowed Blukip hook line sinker hands votes to centre ground parties. This is the problem when parties are owned by their extremes and vacate the centre. Like when people say “How delicious your manifesto cake, the lemon tastes divine” Put in too much Lemon and its “ **** *** ***** are you doing with the lemon, trying to kill me?”
The Mail in particular have been resolute for this pact, and their front page at their triumph will be a thing of beauty, like a song of sirens calling Boris to the rocks being beautiful, not that The Mail in all reason want Boris on the rocks, but by their nature its what sirens can’t help doing. 😊
There is lot more to politics than crunching numbers (I know I am saying this on the wrong blog 😏) There’s what is happening to the message that changes crunched numbers. The actual politics of getting messages cutting through.The Brexit Pact instantly energised the LibDem and Labour campaigns and messaging did it not? It’s mana to getting message across about how Tories been taken over by blukip.
most important thing is blurring the credibility of BP and Tory as separate parties, how many more votes for LibDems and for Labour does this blurring yield over like a magic vote tree? It may look like the same point made against last weeks Remain Alliance: what does a green or LibDem voter do if the candidate of the other party says or stands for something they don’t like, why are they separate parties anyway, but on Brexit Pact side of the fence this can prove far more toxic because number of moderate Torys being chased by LibDems runs into millions not just thousands. BP may lose votes to the Conservatives from this loss of credibility, but Tories will lose votes to the centre, those who see themselves as Liberal Conservatives, Brexit Pact and idea Tory party has swallowed Blukip hook line sinker hands votes to centre ground parties. This is the problem when parties are owned by their extremes and vacate the centre. Like when people say “How delicious your manifesto cake, the lemon tastes divine” Put in too much Lemon and its “ **** *** ***** are you doing with the lemon, trying to kill me?”
The Mail in particular have been resolute for this pact, and their front page at their triumph will be a thing of beauty, like a song of sirens calling Boris to the rocks being beautiful, not that The Mail in all reason want Boris on the rocks, but by their nature its what sirens can’t help doing. 😊
How many Remain Tories will have been put off by Farage standing down when they weren't put off by the Boris prorogation?
I would echo the sentiments of the OP. The Tories were badly burnt last election, yet there is no similarity between this election and that one. 'Look what happened in 2017' is pure wishful thinking, and there is simply no evidence to suggest it could possibly happen again - for all sorts of reasons. As someone else said, Labour got over 40% and STILL lost the election.
Two B's - Boris & Brexit - will see the Tories home, comfortably.
Not no evidence, just not definitive evidence. It's too early for that.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
How is Corbyn going to become PM given the only realistic possible way the Tories lose their majority is if the LDs hold the balance of power and they will refuse to make Corbyn PM?
I don't believe that they won't put him in in returnfor the promise of a referendum. They'll think they can control him. Like tha nationalists in Germany in the 1930s.
Of course they won't. Swinson's repeated promises about not putting Corbyn into No 10 will have been wargamed to death.
The tuition fees saga is branded into all LDs' folk memory - as is the antipathy to Corbyn of virtually all members today. And the pressure from the overwhelming majority of LD members that, however awful No Deal might be, it won't be as awful as having Milne in the same role as Cummings.
The real question if on Dec 13, Lab/SNP/Grn/other sane non-Johnsonians add up to more than the Johnsonians, is: "how does Swinson convince sane Labour MPs to defenestrate the man who's within millimetres of chucking Johnson out?"
Of course, if Labour blinks first, she'll have shown almost Thatcherian levels of cojones - and demonstrate, like her wardrobe at the Cenotaph yesterday, that she really is the best-qualified candidate for PM.
My first canvasser of the election! Labour party. I gave them a firm but friendly no thank you, but took their leaflet to pass on to my partner who might vote Labour. The leaflet says nothing about Brexit or Corbyn, but focuses on services and the Labour incumbent. The canvasser seemed pretty relaxed and when I pressed a bit on how it's going on the doorstop, it sounded very positive for them. They admitted to a bit of uncertainty over Corbyn on some doorsteps but people still saying yes to them. Reinforces my view that it will be a Labour hold here. But it is a safe seat.
The leaflet, by the way, is the second piece of literature I've had this election. A Lib Dem newspaper came through the door a few days ago, going heavily on "Stop Brexit!" which gets my vote all day long.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
There is lot more to politics than crunching numbers (I know I am saying this on the wrong blog 😏) There’s what is happening to the message that changes crunched numbers. The actual politics of getting messages cutting through.The Brexit Pact instantly energised the LibDem and Labour campaigns and messaging did it not? It’s mana to getting message across about how Tories been taken over by blukip.
most important thing is blurring the credibility of BP and Tory as separate parties, how many more votes for LibDems and for Labour does this blurring yield over like a magic vote tree? It may look like the same point made against last weeks Remain Alliance: what does a green or LibDem voter do if the candidate of the other party says or stands for something they don’t like, why are they separate parties anyway, but on Brexit Pact side of the fence this can prove far more toxic because number of moderate Torys being chased by LibDems runs into millions not just thousands. BP may lose votes to the Conservatives from this loss of credibility, but Tories will lose votes to the centre, those who see themselves as Liberal Conservatives, Brexit Pact and idea Tory party has swallowed Blukip hook line sinker hands votes to centre ground parties. This is the problem when parties are owned by their extremes and vacate the centre. Like when people say “How delicious your manifesto cake, the lemon tastes divine” Put in too much Lemon and its “ **** *** ***** are you doing with the lemon, trying to kill me?”
The Mail in particular have been resolute for this pact, and their front page at their triumph will be a thing of beauty, like a song of sirens calling Boris to the rocks being beautiful, not that The Mail in all reason want Boris on the rocks, but by their nature its what sirens can’t help doing. 😊
How many Remain Tories will have been put off by Farage standing down when they weren't put off by the Boris prorogation?
They might have been put off by the prorogation - quite aside from the incompetence of it, and the desire to get around parliament, it was feared it was a way to permit no deal. He got a deal afterwards, which may have won many of them back, since it's easier to justify doing so to stop Corbyn if no deal is seemingly off the table. Will they be scared off again by Farage's blessing?
I suspect not all that many. Farage might cost the Tories seats in some marginals, but his move does seem to be one of weakness more than strength, so the worry his endorsement bodes ill for the next phase may not persuade too many Tory remainers.
LAB remains a real threat! Lots of people on benefits and those 'rich through mummy and daddy' who think that voting LAB demonstrates a social conscience!
Beware the CORBYN
That is the right message for PB Tories to keep repeating.
I endorse this AVE IT
Tory rampers for labour are going to be a frequent feature on here and in the media they need to create the image of labour being a risk to help them over the line.
For every Tory ramper there are two or three of us who are genuinely frit. For clarity, I really wouldn't describe myself as a Tory - just someone who thinks Corbyn as PM would be a catastrophe for the country on a scale unmatched since the war.
We need a name for the new party. ConBrex...BrexCon...The ConMen ....KipperCons....BluKips....The shits
Good Header Pulp! After giving me the two correct results out of two I was interested in I'm following you big time!!
Today’s announcement certainly consolidates what we’re against. Cameron must be turning in his political grave.
Cameron was right. The fruitcake loony and racist party has just got one hell of a lot bigger. Ann Widdicombe is completely bonkers! If this doesn't get the opposition parties of their backsides nothing will.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
I suppose we can't really talk, didn't we try to interfere with the Bush/Kerry race?
There is lot more to politics than crunching numbers (I know I am saying this on the wrong blog 😏) There’s what is happening to the message that changes crunched numbers. The actual politics of getting messages cutting through.The Brexit Pact instantly energised the LibDem and Labour campaigns and messaging did it not? It’s mana to getting message across about how Tories been taken over by blukip.
most important thing is blurring the credibility of BP and Tory as separate parties, how many more votes for LibDems and for Labour does this blurring yield over like a magic vote tree? It may look like the same point made against last weeks Remain Alliance: what does a green or LibDem voter do if the candidate of the other party says or stands for something they don’t like, why are they separate parties anyway, but on Brexit Pact side of the fence this can prove far more toxic because number of moderate Torys being chased by LibDems runs into millions not just thousands. BP may lose votes to the Conservatives from this loss of credibility, but Tories will lose votes to the centre, those who see themselves as Liberal Conservatives, Brexit Pact and idea Tory party has swallowed Blukip hook line sinker hands votes to centre ground parties. This is the problem when parties are owned by their extremes and vacate the centre. Like when people say “How delicious your manifesto cake, the lemon tastes divine” Put in too much Lemon and its “ **** *** ***** are you doing with the lemon, trying to kill me?”
The Mail in particular have been resolute for this pact, and their front page at their triumph will be a thing of beauty, like a song of sirens calling Boris to the rocks being beautiful, not that The Mail in all reason want Boris on the rocks, but by their nature its what sirens can’t help doing. 😊
I think the difference is that BXP are a single issue party. Anyone who votes for them or is thinking of doing so really only cares about getting brexit done. Where they stand aside the only other option there is the Tory party.
With the greens and lib Dems it's much blurrier. The lib Dems and greens have actual policies that don't necessarily agree with each other and a green voter may be more inclined to vote Labour. Same for PC. How much of an effect that has isn't easy to say, but I think a major stumbling block is that I would vote lib dem if they agreed to implement some kind of single market brexit. Their policies appeal to me, they definitely won't be appealing to green voters in this alliance.
The Lib Dems only become relevant if Labour get below 270 or so, possibly lower. Otherwise Labour can just rely on the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
So it’s considerably more likely than not that the Lib Dems only come into the mix if Labour has gone backwards in the seat count from last time. If so, there’s a very different dynamic to party negotiations. One more heave isn’t going to be remotely credible. The party leader would have demonstrably failed.
One is moved to point out that Labour won 262 seats at the last election, and I think we can write off 6 of the 7 Scottish Labour MPs at the outset, which leaves them with about 255 defences - give or take the effect of the election of the new Speaker, and counting all the seats of ex-Labourites and defectors like the Tiggers, Woodcock and Field as theirs.
Realistically they're not going to take any of the 2017 Lib Dems out, so they are going to need to make net gains from the Tories in order to avoid reliance on the Lib Dems, even if they manage to get everyone else (including the DUP) on side. Clearly if the Lib Dems take ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge from Labour, then the chances of Jo Swinson capturing the balance of power increase further.
The fact that a Remain alliance that necessarily involves the Lib Dems would mean that Labour would've gone backwards does nothing to neutralise Corbyn, and nor does the fact that it would be a second General Election defeat. He would still be Labour leader, would still have the backing of most of the membership, and the Parliamentary party would contain a greater proportion of loyalists than before.
Unless Labour completely defies the political gravity of Corbyn's dreadful personal ratings and actually manages to make a decent number of net gains, the Liberal Democrats will almost certainly end up having to make a decision on which Prime Ministerial candidate to back. That means empowering Corbyn, failure or not. He's the only one of the two available candidates that can be made to give them what they want.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
Well, she would probably be right about that.
Hilary Clinton is now live on the One Show, and I'm not even joking. Talking about unsung heroines. No sign of an Epstein question...yet.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
She’s remarkably arrogant and lacking in self-awareness.
And, helpfully, thinks any criticism of her must be sexist or motivated by jealousy thus allowing her to be entirely dismissive of it.
Blimey, take away the sexist bit and you could be describing Trump!
There are more similarities between those two than either would care to admit.
And many differences, too. Clinton is cerebral, but tone deaf when it comes to influencing public opinion. Trump’s powers of analysis and attention span are par to those of a five year old, but he has an extraordinary feel for what sways a crowd.
LAB remains a real threat! Lots of people on benefits and those 'rich through mummy and daddy' who think that voting LAB demonstrates a social conscience!
Beware the CORBYN
That is the right message for PB Tories to keep repeating.
I endorse this AVE IT
Tory rampers for labour are going to be a frequent feature on here and in the media they need to create the image of labour being a risk to help them over the line.
For clarity, I really wouldn't describe myself as a Tory - just someone who thinks Corbyn as PM would be a catastrophe for the country on a scale unmatched since the war.
The Lib Dems only become relevant if Labour get below 270 or so, possibly lower. Otherwise Labour can just rely on the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
So it’s considerably more likely than not that the Lib Dems only come into the mix if Labour has gone backwards in the seat count from last time. If so, there’s a very different dynamic to party negotiations. One more heave isn’t going to be remotely credible. The party leader would have demonstrably failed.
One is moved to point out that Labour won 262 seats at the last election, and I think we can write off 6 of the 7 Scottish Labour MPs at the outset, which leaves them with about 255 defences - give or take the effect of the election of the new Speaker, and counting all the seats of ex-Labourites and defectors like the Tiggers, Woodcock and Field as theirs.
Realistically they're not going to take any of the 2017 Lib Dems out, so they are going to need to make net gains from the Tories in order to avoid reliance on the Lib Dems, even if they manage to get everyone else (including the DUP) on side. Clearly if the Lib Dems take ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge from Labour, then the chances of Jo Swinson capturing the balance of power increase further.
The fact that a Remain alliance that necessarily involves the Lib Dems would mean that Labour would've gone backwards does nothing to neutralise Corbyn, and nor does the fact that it would be a second General Election defeat. He would still be Labour leader, would still have the backing of most of the membership, and the Parliamentary party would contain a greater proportion of loyalists than before.
Unless Labour completely defies the political gravity of Corbyn's dreadful personal ratings and actually manages to make a decent number of net gains, the Liberal Democrats will almost certainly end up having to make a decision on which Prime Ministerial candidate to back. That means empowering Corbyn, failure or not. He's the only one of the two available candidates that can be made to give them what they want.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
I'm genuinely interested to see how EU policy towards Russia develops after Brexit. The US will eventually revert to type and become anti, but there's a lot of sympathy for Russia in Germany and the Med while we're one of the leading anti-Putin voices.
LAB remains a real threat! Lots of people on benefits and those 'rich through mummy and daddy' who think that voting LAB demonstrates a social conscience!
Beware the CORBYN
That is the right message for PB Tories to keep repeating.
I endorse this AVE IT
Tory rampers for labour are going to be a frequent feature on here and in the media they need to create the image of labour being a risk to help them over the line.
For every Tory ramper there are two or three of us who are genuinely frit. For clarity, I really wouldn't describe myself as a Tory - just someone who thinks Corbyn as PM would be a catastrophe for the country on a scale unmatched since the war.
pb has officially gone all anti-Corbyn which is fine but it's ignoring the fact that, actually, the tories aren't doing particularly well either and Johnson's not THAT popular.
Compared to the only alternative, Boris is one of the most wildly popular PM candidates ever put forward.
If Labour had moderate leadership they wouldn’t be miles ahead in this election.
There wouldn’t be an election because Boris figures wouldn’t look so bad in the commons, he wouldn’t have sent the DUP under a bus nor his liberal Tories to the gallows harangued on the way by Dom if he thought there would be an election up against a moderate labour leader,
If Labour had moderate leadership there wouldn't never have been a 2017 election, we would have Brexited in March and PM May would be negotiating the terms of a FTA at the moment.
If Labour had any leader other than Corbyn we wouldn’t have voted to leave the EU. Sliding doors and all that.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
Well, as a former Secretary of State who clearly understands the danger Putin poses, who sees her country and ours suffering as hostile foreign governments prop up Western fascists, quite a lot. I'd have thought all of us who oppose Putin's corrosive influence in our country would welcome her words.
Anecdote alert: I am visiting family in south Ceredigion, and have seen quite a lot of ben lake/plaid posters, 1 labour poster and none for any other parties.
My (english) brother-in-law who is a committed remainer, also said unprompted that Ben Lake had a good reputation in the area, for being hard-working and pleasant.
I know there might be lots of shy liberals, but Judging by the placard contest, you would not know that the liberals were fighting hard in the south part of ceredigion.
LAB remains a real threat! Lots of people on benefits and those 'rich through mummy and daddy' who think that voting LAB demonstrates a social conscience!
Beware the CORBYN
That is the right message for PB Tories to keep repeating.
I endorse this AVE IT
Tory rampers for labour are going to be a frequent feature on here and in the media they need to create the image of labour being a risk to help them over the line.
For every Tory ramper there are two or three of us who are genuinely frit. For clarity, I really wouldn't describe myself as a Tory - just someone who thinks Corbyn as PM would be a catastrophe for the country on a scale unmatched since the war.
Me too. I could feel things slipping from TM last time, can't get a handle on this one yet. One thing that surprises me is the inept LD campaign - so far. The bloody idiots need to play the sensible moderate card and that means attacking Corbyn and the momentum dominated Labour leadership as unfit to govern and a threat to democracy. They need to attack even handedly!
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
I'm genuinely interested to see how EU policy towards Russia develops after Brexit. The US will eventually revert to type and become anti, but there's a lot of sympathy for Russia in Germany and the Med while we're one of the leading anti-Putin voices.
Ironically, Leavers have been the chief enablers of Russia, even as many of them profess to oppose it. Useful idiots.
My first canvasser of the election! Labour party. I gave them a firm but friendly no thank you, but took their leaflet to pass on to my partner who might vote Labour. The leaflet says nothing about Brexit or Corbyn, but focuses on services and the Labour incumbent. The canvasser seemed pretty relaxed and when I pressed a bit on how it's going on the doorstop, it sounded very positive for them. They admitted to a bit of uncertainty over Corbyn on some doorsteps but people still saying yes to them. Reinforces my view that it will be a Labour hold here. But it is a safe seat.
The leaflet, by the way, is the second piece of literature I've had this election. A Lib Dem newspaper came through the door a few days ago, going heavily on "Stop Brexit!" which gets my vote all day long.
Corbyn not mentioned on 803 Labour leaflets seen by FT. On 322/760 Tory ones.
They won't, they will vote for an EU referendum amemdment but they will not make Corbyn PM, if they did so all the gains they had made in the Home Counties from the Tories to hold the balance of power would go straight back to the Tories.
The Lib Dems will, given the chance, install Corbyn because somebody has to be Prime Minister, and the only two candidates will be the Conservative leader and the Labour leader. The Conservative leader can't give them the chance to Remain, so they must install the Labour one.
Trying to wish Jeremy Corbyn away, even if they close their eyes and imagine Keir Starmer is the actual Labour leader really, really hard, won't work. They will have to treat with him to get what they want.
The only possible getout is if the Conservatives fall so far short of a majority that the Lib Dems can abstain, and the other Opposition parties still have the numbers to outvote them. It's possible, of course, but it seems unlikely.
The Lib Dems only become relevant if Labour get below 270 or so, possibly lower. Otherwise Labour can just rely on the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
So it’s considerably more likely than not that the Lib Dems only come into the mix if Labour has gone backwards in the seat count from last time. If so, there’s a very different dynamic to party negotiations. One more heave isn’t going to be remotely credible. The party leader would have demonstrably failed.
Good point - and he would under normal circumstances resign immediately, so who would take over as interim leader in the absence of Tom Watson.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
I'm genuinely interested to see how EU policy towards Russia develops after Brexit. The US will eventually revert to type and become anti, but there's a lot of sympathy for Russia in Germany and the Med while we're one of the leading anti-Putin voices.
Ironically, Leavers have been the chief enablers of Russia, even as many of them profess to oppose it. Useful idiots.
No, it's just that the Russia issue ranks very low on the list of priorities. Tbh, it's interesting but didn't and still doesn't make any difference to how I would vote.
My first canvasser of the election! Labour party. I gave them a firm but friendly no thank you, but took their leaflet to pass on to my partner who might vote Labour. The leaflet says nothing about Brexit or Corbyn, but focuses on services and the Labour incumbent. The canvasser seemed pretty relaxed and when I pressed a bit on how it's going on the doorstop, it sounded very positive for them. They admitted to a bit of uncertainty over Corbyn on some doorsteps but people still saying yes to them. Reinforces my view that it will be a Labour hold here. But it is a safe seat.
The leaflet, by the way, is the second piece of literature I've had this election. A Lib Dem newspaper came through the door a few days ago, going heavily on "Stop Brexit!" which gets my vote all day long.
Corbyn not mentioned on 803 Labour leaflets seen by FT. On 322/760 Tory ones.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
She’s remarkably arrogant and lacking in self-awareness.
And, helpfully, thinks any criticism of her must be sexist or motivated by jealousy thus allowing her to be entirely dismissive of it.
Blimey, take away the sexist bit and you could be describing Trump!
There are more similarities between those two than either would care to admit.
And many differences, too. Clinton is cerebral, but tone deaf when it comes to influencing public opinion. Trump’s powers of analysis and attention span are par to those of a five year old, but he has an extraordinary feel for what sways a crowd.
Oh, of course. But they are both very arrogant and flawed candidates.
I think this is an interesting piece on Russian long-term planning to undermine governments. Makes me wonder if the UK public has been brainwashed by Farage and co....
Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages. The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve. According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
What geopolitical objectives do you think Russia has achieved from Brexit and Trump?
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
It definitely is effective. The islamphobic conspiracy theories are pure Putin, the reaction to the 2015 migrant crisis was manufactured by Russian propaganda and foreign policy, with coordinated disinformation and civilian bombing in Syria, creating a wave of migrants and the fear-stoking fake news that fed off that. The amplification of fascists in UK, Germany, Italy and France, amongst others, has boosted the far-right's electoral performance across Europe.
There is lot more to politics than crunching numbers (I know I am saying this on the wrong blog 😏) There’s what is happening to the message that changes crunched numbers. The actual politics of getting messages cutting through.The Brexit Pact instantly energised the LibDem and Labour campaigns and messaging did it not? It’s mana to getting message across about how Tories been taken over by blukip.
most important thing is blurring the credibility of BP and Tory as separate parties, how many more votes for LibDems and for Labour does this blurring yield over like a magic vote tree? It may look like the same point made against last weeks Remain Alliance: what does a green or LibDem voter do if the candidate of the other party says or stands for something they don’t like, why are they separate parties anyway, but on Brexit Pact side of the fence this can prove far more toxic because number of moderate Torys being chased by LibDems runs into millions not just thousands. BP may lose votes to the Conservatives from this loss of credibility, but Tories will lose votes to the centre, those who see themselves as Liberal Conservatives, Brexit Pact and idea Tory party has swallowed Blukip hook line sinker hands votes to centre ground parties. This is the problem when parties are owned by their extremes and vacate the centre. Like when people say “How delicious your manifesto cake, the lemon tastes divine” Put in too much Lemon and its “ **** *** ***** are you doing with the lemon, trying to kill me?”
The Mail in particular have been resolute for this pact, and their front page at their triumph will be a thing of beauty, like a song of sirens calling Boris to the rocks being beautiful, not that The Mail in all reason want Boris on the rocks, but by their nature its what sirens can’t help doing. 😊
How many Remain Tories will have been put off by Farage standing down when they weren't put off by the Boris prorogation?
They might have been put off by the prorogation - quite aside from the incompetence of it, and the desire to get around parliament, it was feared it was a way to permit no deal. He got a deal afterwards, which may have won many of them back, since it's easier to justify doing so to stop Corbyn if no deal is seemingly off the table. Will they be scared off again by Farage's blessing?
I suspect not all that many. Farage might cost the Tories seats in some marginals, but his move does seem to be one of weakness more than strength, so the worry his endorsement bodes ill for the next phase may not persuade too many Tory remainers.
As a Tory Remainer it's a very simple choice, Corbyn or Brexit. When it boils down to it Corbyn would've lost out to no deal for many. The deal, such as it is, makes it even easier.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
It definitely is effective. The islamphobic conspiracy theories are pure Putin, the reaction to the 2015 migrant crisis was manufactured by Russian propaganda and foreign policy, with coordinated disinformation and civilian bombing in Syria, creating a wave of migrants and the fear-stoking fake news that fed off that. The amplification of fascists in UK, Germany, Italy and France, amongst others, has boosted the far-right's electoral performance across Europe.
And its cheered on by Tory party tribalists here in the UK.
whatever happened to the principle that you don't interfere with domestic politics in another country?
Has there ever been such an open goal? I almost can't be bothered because it's slightly embarrassing but I guess I have to. So here goes -
The best person to direct the question to is that US president guy who rings up London radio stations and straight out tells the listeners how to vote in our general election.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
Well, as a former Secretary of State who clearly understands the danger Putin poses, who sees her country and ours suffering as hostile foreign governments prop up Western fascists, quite a lot. I'd have thought all of us who oppose Putin's corrosive influence in our country would welcome her words.
What do we do if we oppose Hillary's corrosive influence in our country?
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
What geopolitical objectives do you think Russia has achieved from Brexit and Trump?
Legitimacy. Russia has economic woes and there are some Russians who would see -- shock horror -- democracy reintroduced there. By weakening Western democracy, Putin can point to how fucked up thing are here and in the USA and say "see?" Also, a key goal is the lifting of sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, which have hurt powerful people in Russia. Putin is not immune to the pressures of wealthy and powerful people inside Russia. Also, pitting countries against each other limits collective action over strategic interests like hydrocarbon supplies and prices, and investment in emerging markets. Russia has made some pitiful attempts to gain influence in Africa but is usually outplayed by China, the EU and the USA. by distracting them, he can weaken the competition.
They won't, they will vote for an EU referendum amemdment but they will not make Corbyn PM, if they did so all the gains they had made in the Home Counties from the Tories to hold the balance of power would go straight back to the Tories.
The Lib Dems will, given the chance, install Corbyn because somebody has to be Prime Minister, and the only two candidates will be the Conservative leader and the Labour leader. The Conservative leader can't give them the chance to Remain, so they must install the Labour one.
Trying to wish Jeremy Corbyn away, even if they close their eyes and imagine Keir Starmer is the actual Labour leader really, really hard, won't work. They will have to treat with him to get what they want.
The only possible getout is if the Conservatives fall so far short of a majority that the Lib Dems can abstain, and the other Opposition parties still have the numbers to outvote them. It's possible, of course, but it seems unlikely.
The Lib Dems only become relevant if Labour get below 270 or so, possibly lower. Otherwise Labour can just rely on the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
So it’s considerably more likely than not that the Lib Dems only come into the mix if Labour has gone backwards in the seat count from last time. If so, there’s a very different dynamic to party negotiations. One more heave isn’t going to be remotely credible. The party leader would have demonstrably failed.
Surely anything fewer than 325 and Johnson's screwed. He doesn't become PM. The DUP wouldn't touch him and there's no one else. What a delicious thought! Within touching distance but just short. Purgatory!
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
It definitely is effective. The islamphobic conspiracy theories are pure Putin, the reaction to the 2015 migrant crisis was manufactured by Russian propaganda and foreign policy, with coordinated disinformation and civilian bombing in Syria, creating a wave of migrants and the fear-stoking fake news that fed off that. The amplification of fascists in UK, Germany, Italy and France, amongst others, has boosted the far-right's electoral performance across Europe.
And its cheered on by Tory party tribalists here in the UK.
Yes, some of them. But it's not just Tories. Russian influence reaches all parties to a greater or lesser extent. Ukip, Brexit Party, Labour, SNP will all have issues here. Ukip probably more than most but they're basically dead now.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
Well, as a former Secretary of State who clearly understands the danger Putin poses, who sees her country and ours suffering as hostile foreign governments prop up Western fascists, quite a lot. I'd have thought all of us who oppose Putin's corrosive influence in our country would welcome her words.
What do we do if we oppose Hillary's corrosive influence in our country?
Ignore her. If all she's doing is speaking openly about her opinions, that's merely free speech. It's illegal donations, bribery, kompromat, unattributable propaganda, and amplification of fascist parties that ought to worry you.
@Black_Rook the Lib Dems are trying to now be the party of Blair and Cameron. That’s different to 2010 when they were trying to be the party of those who thought Labour was too right wing AND that of the Orange Bookers.
whatever happened to the principle that you don't interfere with domestic politics in another country?
Has there ever been such an open goal? I almost can't be bothered because it's slightly embarrassing but I guess I have to. So here goes -
The best person to direct the question to is that US president guy who rings up London radio stations and straight out tells the listeners how to vote in our general election.
Didn't realise we were meant to use Trump as a role model.
"It's understood members paid £100 to be considered for a seat, and it is not yet clear if those who will be stood down will get a refund."
Would there be legal issues with paying someone to not stand in an election ?
I wouldn't have thought that was the point. However imagine that you'd been amongst a number of people who'd paid £100 to be considered as a candidate and then chosen as one, only to have Farage announce that you weren't standing. You'd certainly want your money back.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
Not sure about your analysis. Whilst the LDs could propose an elder statesman (or woman) as an interim PM, I would not be averse to leaving No10 empty (although not sure about the constitutional position). I recall discussing a similar position with my Belgian colleagues about 8-9 years ago when Belgium could not agree on a government. They were all agreed - Belgium had never been better run than during the period when the technocrats were in charge.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
So the Libs need a Tory win, and have no strategic interest in a remain coalition.
They won't, they will vote for an EU referendum amemdment but they will not make Corbyn PM, if they did so all the gains they had made in the Home Counties from the Tories to hold the balance of power would go straight back to the Tories.
The Lib Dems will, given the chance, install Corbyn because somebody has to be Prime Minister, and the only two candidates will be the Conservative leader and the Labour leader. The Conservative leader can't give them the chance to Remain, so they must install the Labour one.
Trying to wish Jeremy Corbyn away, even if they close their eyes and imagine Keir Starmer is the actual Labour leader really, really hard, won't work. They will have to treat with him to get what they want.
The only possible getout is if the Conservatives fall so far short of a majority that the Lib Dems can abstain, and the other Opposition parties still have the numbers to outvote them. It's possible, of course, but it seems unlikely.
The Lib Dems only become relevant if Labour get below 270 or so, possibly lower. Otherwise Labour can just rely on the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
So it’s considerably more likely than not that the Lib Dems only come into the mix if Labour has gone backwards in the seat count from last time. If so, there’s a very different dynamic to party negotiations. One more heave isn’t going to be remotely credible. The party leader would have demonstrably failed.
Surely anything fewer than 325 and Johnson's screwed. He doesn't become PM. The DUP wouldn't touch him and there's no one else. What a delicious thought! Within touching distance but just short. Purgatory!
To be a touch pedantic, one would expect the winning post to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 322, assuming that Sinn Fein does about as well as last time and persists in abstentionism.
Subtracting the Speaker and deputies, Johnson should need about 320 votes for a working majority of one.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
No, the LibDems absolutely don't have to back anyone. They can stay as an opposition party voting as they choose on each individual policy.
"It's understood members paid £100 to be considered for a seat, and it is not yet clear if those who will be stood down will get a refund."
Would there be legal issues with paying someone to not stand in an election ?
107 Corrupt withdrawal from candidature. Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
Hung parliament, Johnson stays in office until no confidence, if he isn’t he can try and push his WA through which fails. Extension requested for referendum by force of parliament vote. Johnson resigns, corbyn invited to form government, is no confidenced then several possible alternatives seek confidence which eventually settle on anybody but corbyn. If they don’t then we go to another GE date chosen by Johnson or corbyn depending on when it falls apart. No way will the lib dems put him in, they don’t need to as there is never a situation where there is no prime minister.
We need a name for the new party. ConBrex...BrexCon...The ConMen ....KipperCons....BluKips....The shits
Good Header Pulp! After giving me the two correct results out of two I was interested in I'm following you big time!!
Today’s announcement certainly consolidates what we’re against. Cameron must be turning in his political grave.
Cameron was right. The fruitcake loony and racist party has just got one hell of a lot bigger. Ann Widdicombe is completely bonkers! If this doesn't get the opposition parties of their backsides nothing will.
“Widdecombe” is the perfect name for this new Tory party.
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
What geopolitical objectives do you think Russia has achieved from Brexit and Trump?
Legitimacy. Russia has economic woes and there are some Russians who would see -- shock horror -- democracy reintroduced there. By weakening Western democracy, Putin can point to how fucked up thing are here and in the USA and say "see?" Also, a key goal is the lifting of sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, which have hurt powerful people in Russia. Putin is not immune to the pressures of wealthy and powerful people inside Russia. Also, pitting countries against each other limits collective action over strategic interests like hydrocarbon supplies and prices, and investment in emerging markets. Russia has made some pitiful attempts to gain influence in Africa but is usually outplayed by China, the EU and the USA. by distracting them, he can weaken the competition.
Lol. Does anyone give a fuck what that serial loser thinks?
What is it to do with her. Sad really
A former Secretary of State with extensive knowledge about Russia and direct personal experience of Russian interference in elections? Yes I’d say her view is worth hearing.
It’s a very personal, partisan and emotionally charged objection. Just read the words, and savour her tone. That’s very probably because she blames the release of a not entirely dissimilar FBI report in her in 2016 for her defeat.
So it’s very close to home.
It’s abundantly clear that Russia does interfere in elections including in Britain. Whether that interference is effective is less clear.
Yes, I agree - it tries its luck.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
It’s also enough to achieve the chaos that it profits from. Brexit and Donald Trump have been golden gifts for it.
What geopolitical objectives do you think Russia has achieved from Brexit and Trump?
The Lib Dems can, as they did in 2010, turn to the Labour leader and say “your party lost and you’re the reason why. Even supply and confidence for Labour is contingent on you resigning.”
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
Except that, if they hold the balance of power and they won't back the Labour candidate for PM, then they must necessarily acquiesce to the Conservative one. It is not as if 10 Downing Street can be left vacant until Labour condescends to present them with a candidate that is more palatable.
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
Not sure about your analysis. Whilst the LDs could propose an elder statesman (or woman) as an interim PM, I would not be averse to leaving No10 empty (although not sure about the constitutional position). I recall discussing a similar position with my Belgian colleagues about 8-9 years ago when Belgium could not agree on a government. They were all agreed - Belgium had never been better run than during the period when the technocrats were in charge.
What's wrong with letting the largest party form a minority government? The LibDems don't HAVE to support even in a C&S any other party, neither do the DUP.
Comments
Tory rampers for labour are going to be a frequent feature on here and in the media they need to create the image of labour being a risk to help them over the line.
Two B's - Boris & Brexit - will see the Tories home, comfortably.
So no joining Tom Watson down at the gym.
most important thing is blurring the credibility of BP and Tory as separate parties, how many more votes for LibDems and for Labour does this blurring yield over like a magic vote tree? It may look like the same point made against last weeks Remain Alliance: what does a green or LibDem voter do if the candidate of the other party says or stands for something they don’t like, why are they separate parties anyway, but on Brexit Pact side of the fence this can prove far more toxic because number of moderate Torys being chased by LibDems runs into millions not just thousands. BP may lose votes to the Conservatives from this loss of credibility, but Tories will lose votes to the centre, those who see themselves as Liberal Conservatives, Brexit Pact and idea Tory party has swallowed Blukip hook line sinker hands votes to centre ground parties. This is the problem when parties are owned by their extremes and vacate the centre. Like when people say “How delicious your manifesto cake, the lemon tastes divine” Put in too much Lemon and its “ **** *** ***** are you doing with the lemon, trying to kill me?”
The Mail in particular have been resolute for this pact, and their front page at their triumph will be a thing of beauty, like a song of sirens calling Boris to the rocks being beautiful, not that The Mail in all reason want Boris on the rocks, but by their nature its what sirens can’t help doing. 😊
I guess Boles is the counterpart to Woodcock and Austin, although not going for the main opponent of the person he despises.
So it’s very close to home.
The tuition fees saga is branded into all LDs' folk memory - as is the antipathy to Corbyn of virtually all members today. And the pressure from the overwhelming majority of LD members that, however awful No Deal might be, it won't be as awful as having Milne in the same role as Cummings.
The real question if on Dec 13, Lab/SNP/Grn/other sane non-Johnsonians add up to more than the Johnsonians, is: "how does Swinson convince sane Labour MPs to defenestrate the man who's within millimetres of chucking Johnson out?"
Of course, if Labour blinks first, she'll have shown almost Thatcherian levels of cojones - and demonstrate, like her wardrobe at the Cenotaph yesterday, that she really is the best-qualified candidate for PM.
I gave them a firm but friendly no thank you, but took their leaflet to pass on to my partner who might vote Labour. The leaflet says nothing about Brexit or Corbyn, but focuses on services and the Labour incumbent.
The canvasser seemed pretty relaxed and when I pressed a bit on how it's going on the doorstop, it sounded very positive for them. They admitted to a bit of uncertainty over Corbyn on some doorsteps but people still saying yes to them. Reinforces my view that it will be a Labour hold here. But it is a safe seat.
The leaflet, by the way, is the second piece of literature I've had this election. A Lib Dem newspaper came through the door a few days ago, going heavily on "Stop Brexit!" which gets my vote all day long.
I suspect not all that many. Farage might cost the Tories seats in some marginals, but his move does seem to be one of weakness more than strength, so the worry his endorsement bodes ill for the next phase may not persuade too many Tory remainers.
You mean baby pics?
For clarity, I really wouldn't describe myself as a Tory - just someone who thinks Corbyn as PM would be a catastrophe for the country on a scale unmatched since the war.
With the greens and lib Dems it's much blurrier. The lib Dems and greens have actual policies that don't necessarily agree with each other and a green voter may be more inclined to vote Labour. Same for PC. How much of an effect that has isn't easy to say, but I think a major stumbling block is that I would vote lib dem if they agreed to implement some kind of single market brexit. Their policies appeal to me, they definitely won't be appealing to green voters in this alliance.
Realistically they're not going to take any of the 2017 Lib Dems out, so they are going to need to make net gains from the Tories in order to avoid reliance on the Lib Dems, even if they manage to get everyone else (including the DUP) on side. Clearly if the Lib Dems take ultra-Remain seats like Cambridge from Labour, then the chances of Jo Swinson capturing the balance of power increase further.
The fact that a Remain alliance that necessarily involves the Lib Dems would mean that Labour would've gone backwards does nothing to neutralise Corbyn, and nor does the fact that it would be a second General Election defeat. He would still be Labour leader, would still have the backing of most of the membership, and the Parliamentary party would contain a greater proportion of loyalists than before.
Unless Labour completely defies the political gravity of Corbyn's dreadful personal ratings and actually manages to make a decent number of net gains, the Liberal Democrats will almost certainly end up having to make a decision on which Prime Ministerial candidate to back. That means empowering Corbyn, failure or not. He's the only one of the two available candidates that can be made to give them what they want.
But, I think Russia under Putin is a chancer. We tend to think it’s as powerful as the Soviet USSR we still have strong memory engrams of laced with James Bond style reach and cunning.
In reality, it just hacks and runs agents on petroleum money and tries its luck wherever it can.
Unfortunately, that’s enough to achieve some pretty nasty assassinations.
Clinton is cerebral, but tone deaf when it comes to influencing public opinion. Trump’s powers of analysis and attention span are par to those of a five year old, but he has an extraordinary feel for what sways a crowd.
They can even make that public. It’s not as if Jeremy Corbyn has vast reservoirs of public affection to draw upon.
I'd have thought all of us who oppose Putin's corrosive influence in our country would welcome her words.
My (english) brother-in-law who is a committed remainer, also said unprompted that Ben Lake had a good reputation in the area, for being hard-working and pleasant.
I know there might be lots of shy liberals, but Judging by the placard contest, you would not know that the liberals were fighting hard in the south part of ceredigion.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1193937311102357505
Its voteshare may still have some way to uptick.
https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/34-years-ago-a-kgb-defector-described-america-today
Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
My conclusion: he wants a high-paid job.
He’s advertising that a peerage isn’t enough because it’s unpaid.
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-anger-from-brexit-party-candidates-as-they-are-stood-down-11859417
"It's understood members paid £100 to be considered for a seat, and it is not yet clear if those who will be stood down will get a refund."
The best person to direct the question to is that US president guy who rings up London radio stations and straight out tells the listeners how to vote in our general election.
By weakening Western democracy, Putin can point to how fucked up thing are here and in the USA and say "see?"
Also, a key goal is the lifting of sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, which have hurt powerful people in Russia. Putin is not immune to the pressures of wealthy and powerful people inside Russia.
Also, pitting countries against each other limits collective action over strategic interests like hydrocarbon supplies and prices, and investment in emerging markets. Russia has made some pitiful attempts to gain influence in Africa but is usually outplayed by China, the EU and the USA. by distracting them, he can weaken the competition.
Hilary Clinton on the One Show NOT ruling herself out of running for president.
But it's not just Tories. Russian influence reaches all parties to a greater or lesser extent. Ukip, Brexit Party, Labour, SNP will all have issues here. Ukip probably more than most but they're basically dead now.
Did I really just type that?
This is not a situation that can be wriggled out of. Only Labour can give them what they want, the Labour candidate is Corbyn, and they cannot plausibly demand that he be changed to get them out of a bind.
Swinson would back a Labour Government, and the centre-right, soft Remain half of her party's voters would feel that they'd be royally had and dump the Liberal Democrats like a sack of spuds. They'd also then be held jointly liable for anything objectionable that Labour did from that point onwards.
As the party previously discovered post-2010, if you try to hold together an electorate consisting of two diametrically-opposed halves then, eventually, you will be forced to give one of them up.
It's illegal donations, bribery, kompromat, unattributable propaganda, and amplification of fascist parties that ought to worry you.
However imagine that you'd been amongst a number of people who'd paid £100 to be considered as a candidate and then chosen as one, only to have Farage announce that you weren't standing. You'd certainly want your money back.
Subtracting the Speaker and deputies, Johnson should need about 320 votes for a working majority of one.
https://twitter.com/ArgusICraig/status/1193951390470692865
Any person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of payment, and any person withdrawing in pursuance of the inducement or procurement, shall be guilty of an illegal payment.
RPA 1983
Not true as I have answered below
Something i was very pleased to see.
The LibDems don't HAVE to support even in a C&S any other party, neither do the DUP.