Britain - The Official Thread

[baldgye]

On that front, his strategy has been a complete success.

Has it? Isn't his deal just the same as May's only slightly worse?

 

[Famine]

Can that happen?

Yep. One Parliament cannot bind the next. If Boris wins convincingly enough - and current projections are 15-point lead, 50-seat majority - he can wave his middle fingers at the Benn Act.

It's worth noting that the Conservative total vote share is down compared to 2017 right now, by a couple of points... but Labour is getting dangerously close to halving its share, and that's what's behind the seat projections.

Furthermore Labour is effectively screwed (in principle) so long as it doesn't openly support any actual outcome - this is a single policy election. Its leader supports a Brexit (on his terms) and its voter base supports Brexit (kinda), but its MPs are supposed to be in opposition and they are the ones continually voting against any form of Brexit either because it's a Tory Brexit or because they think their constituents are wrong. That's put a lot of Labour MPs on very shaky ground - our MP is very much in the forefront of the post-vote remain campaign, despite the constituency being two-thirds leave, because she thinks the constituents didn't know what they were voting for/were lied to/need protecting from themselves. In fact it'd probably be even more in favour of leave now, and come a GE there's a significant chance she'll be booted out and sent back to that London from whence she came.

Any party that campaigns on remain/2R/withdraw A50 and try again has 350 seats they cannot win - it's actually surprisingly tough to come up with accurate figures (counting areas vs constituencies) but Leave 'won' 408 constituencies, with 242 Remain (and two... *shrug*), and although there's definitely been a swing away from leave it's not enough in the areas above 52.5% leave. That encompasses every leave area in the North-East, all but one in Yorkshire, all but two in Wales, all but three in the West Midlands, all but four in the North-West, all but five in the East Midlands, all but nine in the East, all four London leave areas... and so on. In fact there's 353 constituencies recording 52.5% or greater for leave, and 291 above 55%. A party campaigning there for not-leave is screwed.

Now, that actually works for the Lib Dems, as they only have 12 MPs elected as Lib Dem MPs in 2017, plus another 7 that have defected to the party since. If they can be the largest party on a defined "notleave" platform, they could do well. If you ignore the 80ish seats in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that they can't win, there's 217 seats they can win by campaigning for notleave.

Whither Labour? Well, Labour will return some seats in Labour heartlands - places that, and I quote, "won't vote Tory so long as there's a hole in my arse" - but I can't see where else.

It's going to come down to Tory or Brexit Party in leave areas (and TBP has said it won't stand candidates against leave-voting Tory MPs), Labour in a scattering of ex-mining/industrial or city centre areas that have yet to see "regeneration", Lib Dem in remain or gentrified ex-mining/industrial and city centre areas, PC in Wales, SNP in Scotland, nightmarish clusterbomb in NI, and Caroline Lucas.

I'm going to guess right now it'll be:
Conservatives: 350
Labour: 160
Lib Dem: 50
SNP: 59 (yes, all of them)
NI unionists: 9
NI republicans: 9
Plaid Cymru: 5
TBP: 5 (hopefully 0)
Green: 1
Others: 2

Conservative Majority: 50

His deal is worse than May’s

Define "worse". If it's "every household will be 6% worse off rather than 4% worse off", you've hit the same patch of ice that the Remain campaign did for the entire referendum.

Leave voters don't care about who's what percent worse off. They want the EU's influence out of their lives because they do not trust it, because they think it's French and German people telling us what to do like we lost the war, while Spain and Italy ignore it but we stupidly follow the rules while they steal our fish. The monetary cost isn't relevant, because it'll be worth it, and anyway we'll recover and be better for it. Anyone who says otherwise is just peddling Project Fear. This is firmly at the forefront of the more determined Leave voters' minds, and in the back of the minds of much of the rest.

For them, Johnson's deal is better because it does that, and because it actually passed a vote and might actually happen. They don't care that it means Northern Ireland gets carved off for a while ("they're all terrorists anyway"), or that they'll be 6% worse off instead of 4% ("6%? That's pretty much nothing.").

The Remain campaign never understood this, and that and its premature ejaculation of outrage that left it unable to escalate, or grasp the rapid leaps from one load of bollocks to the next, is why it lost.


Well, that and Facebook. Though I don't see many Remain voters divesting themselves of their social media, hashtag FBPE.

 

[baldgye]

Define "worse". If it's "every household will be 6% worse off rather than 4% worse off", you've hit the same patch of ice that the Remain campaign did for the entire referendum.

Leave voters don't care about who's what percent worse off. They want the EU's influence out of their lives because they do not trust it, because they think it's French and German people telling us what to do like we lost the war, while Spain and Italy ignore it but we stupidly follow the rules while they steal our fish. The monetary cost isn't relevant, because it'll be worth it, and anyway we'll recover and be better for it. Anyone who says otherwise is just peddling Project Fear. This is firmly at the forefront of the more determined Leave voters' minds, and in the back of the minds of much of the rest.

For them, Johnson's deal is better because it does that, and because it actually passed a vote and might actually happen. They don't care that it means Northern Ireland gets carved off for a while ("they're all terrorists anyway"), or that they'll be 6% worse off instead of 4% ("6%? That's pretty much nothing.").

The Remain campaign never understood this, and that and its premature ejaculation of outrage that left it unable to escalate, or grasp the rapid leaps from one load of bollocks to the next, is why it lost.


Well, that and Facebook. Though I don't see many Remain voters divesting themselves of their social media, hashtag FBPE.

Worse, as in, the the same deal May got, only it makes us worse off...

I understand why Remain lost and why Leave won (which obviously had nothing to do with Leave breaking the law!). Those factors haven't really changed, but if you look at recent polling done, it shows what people are concerned with at the moment isn't immigration and foreign interference, it's stuff like the NHS.
The pool of people swinging hard in either direction has (IMO) shrunk. The further has died down as people have grown wherry and tired of Brexit dominating the news, while others have already been negatively impacted by it's economical ramifications. The Brexit camp of Farage and co seem to have pushed against Bojo in the last few months and this division and confusion doesn't make for much of a campaign.

For me an election isn't about changing the minds of the Brexiters, they can't be convinced either-way, Leavers will vote for what ever populist right-wing moron will shout the loudest.
What matters is those people who aren't one way or another, that middling band of people who where undecided or who have changed their mind. The Lib Dems base is larger than Brexit Partys and I think that this will help put them into coalition territory. They have a unified, simple message, it's not no-deal Brexit, or deal Brexit or lets get a better deal Brexit. It's no-Brexit. It's as clear as Leave's message and I think it'll resonate with people.

But I could be wrong, I was wrong originally in the assumption the people of this country wouldn't be fooled by populist right-wing stupidity in the first place... /shrug

 

[Famine]

Worse, as in, the the same deal May got, only it makes us worse off...

It's projected to make us financially worse off (something something, Project Fear), but nobody cares if it actually gets us out of the EU. Except the metropolitan elite who don't want us to leave at all.

For me an election isn't about changing the minds of the Brexiters, they can't be convinced either-way, Leavers will vote for what ever populist right-wing moron will shout the loudest.

I'm not convinced that's true. We've had "right-wing" morons shouting loudly before. They didn't twitch the needle, either as the BNP (actually they were centre-right at best, but very fascist), EDL (no financial policies I'm aware of, just fascism) or as the original UKIP. They had some ardent core support, but by and large they were punchlines. Remember the Muslamic Rayguns kid? Exactly.

For some reason it all changed with the Treaty of Lisbon. Now I doubt that many voters on either side have familiarised themselves with it, or used it as part of their decision-making process in the Referendum, but from that point on Euroscepticism became mainstream for some reason. I can't really work out what that reason is either - we'd had dumb stories in the Daily Mail about straight bananas, throwing fish back because of quotas, and excessively blemished potatoes (replacing "health and safety gone mad!" and conkers) for years to that point, but everything changed in 2007.

UKIP lost every seat and didn't even hold its deposits in any of them in 1997. In 2005, before Lisbon, it was in 25 times as many constituencies but still returning no seats and losing the deposit of 98.6% of candidates. In 2010, after Lisbon, it was pulling 200 times the vote count with 6 times the vote share - and while it had no seats, 20% of candidates retained their deposit. In 2015 it had 400% of the vote count and share, and actually returned an MP - plus 88% of candidates retained their deposit. A sixth of all votes in that election went to the joke party - if we had PR and not FPTP, they'd have had 108 MPs... Of course by 2017 with "job done", it had collapsed again to joke party status.

Farage was yelling no more loudly in 2015 than he had been in 2005 - I remember listening to him on the radio when I lived in Kent, and I left there in 2007 - although he was getting more overtly racist, but for some reason it was clicking more with people.

I have absolutely no idea why.

What matters is those people who aren't one way or another, that middling band of people who where undecided or who have changed their mind. The Lib Dems base is larger than Brexit Partys and I think that this will help put them into coalition territory. They have a unified, simple message, it's not no-deal Brexit, or deal Brexit or lets get a better deal Brexit. It's no-Brexit. It's as clear as Leave's message and I think it'll resonate with people.

It will, but not with enough people who will actually vote (and there's a lot of 25-30 year olds still sore about the Lib Dems because of tuition fees; it's not entirely appropriate for them to feel like that, but they do) and not in enough places, particularly with FPTP. Even without Jo Swinson trying her hardest to alienate white males recently.

Meanwhile the Conservatives have 350 seats wanting Brexit that they can show they've been trying to deliver, but which Labour, Lib Dem, Change (or whatever they are this week), DOOP and so on have been voting against. Vote Conservative to get Brexit done. Everyone else is fighting for the other 300.

 

[baldgye]

For some reason it all changed with the Treaty of Lisbon. Now I doubt that many voters on either side have familiarised themselves with it, or used it as part of their decision-making process in the Referendum, but from that point on Euroscepticism became mainstream for some reason. I can't really work out what that reason is either - we'd had dumb stories in the Daily Mail about straight bananas, throwing fish back because of quotas, and excessively blemished potatoes (replacing "health and safety gone mad!" and conkers) for years to that point, but everything changed in 2007.

Did it?
From what I can tell (though I could be wrong), Euroscepticism was just something that constantly grew not long after joining. It's momentum was tickled along by politicians needing a scapegoat. Farage has been able to perfect his strategy and marketing skills over the last 20 years and with dubious funding he's been able to propel himself and his cause.

If you look at the core message of Farage and Leave, it isn't really about anything more complex than Xenophobia, racism and people not understanding what the EU is and how it works.

It will, but not with enough people who will actually vote (and there's a lot of 25-30 year olds still sore about the Lib Dems because of tuition fees; it's not entirely appropriate for them to feel like that, but they do) and not in enough places, particularly with FPTP. Even without Jo Swinson trying her hardest to alienate white males recently.

Meanwhile the Conservatives have 350 seats wanting Brexit that they can show they've been trying to deliver, but which Labour, Lib Dem, Change (or whatever they are this week), DOOP and so on have been voting against. Vote Conservative to get Brexit done. Everyone else is fighting for the other 300.

Voting turnout will be important as it always is.
But I'm not convinced of the second paragraph. What Brexit are they going to deliver? The Deal no one can agree on? No-Deal? I think the ERG has caused quite a lot of damage to the Tory party and the massive economical impact Brexit will have for business could turn once core Tory voters away.

 

[Famine]

Did it?

Very much so. The EU was just a thing we were in like NATO or the UN, and an occasional punchline about bureaucracy (like H&S)... and then it wasn't. I don't really know how or why, but it was like suddenly "the Germans are taking over Europe like they tried to in WW2!!!!". And you don't exactly need to stoke up anti-German sentiment in the UK (or at least in England) because Hitler, despite the fact that the German people were Hitler's first victims.

An EC survey called "Eurobarometer" actually shows it too. The survey's peak of 52% of citizens with a good impression of the EU came in... 2007. Since then it's fallen down progressively to the low 30s, although there's been a mild uptick since last year. There's number of other questions too, including trust in the EU. For sheer comedy value, the UK and Germany are tied on 63% distrust, behind only France, Austria and Greece. Seems we have more in common with the Germans than some would like to think

If you look at the core message of Farage and Leave, it isn't really about anything more complex than Xenophobia, racism and people not understanding what the EU is and how it works.

Indeed, but who does? Ask most people what the difference is between the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe, and you're not likely to get a right answer (especially between the last, baffling three). It seems designed to confuse.

A big problem is Lisbon - which took a few goes to get through every state (they voted again until the EU got the right answer) - complicated things intensely.

In fact the EU was originally very simple. The first component of the EU was a coal and steel trading bloc in 1957. When we voted in the referendum in 1975 to remain in that bloc, it had become a trading bloc for coal and steel, nuclear power and research, and money, now known as the EC (European Communities). It was in fact three organisations operating as one by then: the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), the EAEC (Atomic Energy) and the EEC (Economic Community).

By 1993, the EC had emerged from the EEC - and note that this was a different EC (Community, rather than Communities) than the EC of 1975, as the EAEC, now known as Euratom, still existed. That EC, with Maastricht, become one pillar of three in the EU (Union), along with the CFSP (foreign security policy) and PJCCM (policing and judicial). The EC pillar of the EU dealt with healthcare, citizenship, agriculture, fisheries, competition law, the environment, free movement, immigration, and money. The CFSP dealt with peacekeeping, human rights, foreign aid and defence policy, while PJCCM dealt with crime, including organised crime, drug smuggling, people trafficking, fraud and terrorism. Maastricht also established the EMU and thus the Euro.

It was all a far cry from coal and steel trading! The powers that the EU had in 1993 were unimaginably different than what the EC had in 1975.

The Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 kicked all that up a notch. It abolished the pillars and created the EU as a "legal person" (so that the EU on its own could be party to treaties), bringing in new powers, new administrative bodies, a change in voting procedure (qualified majority), the adoption of the central bank as an EU entity, the Court of Justice, and so on. Amusingly, one of the new things brought in by Lisbon was the withdrawal procedure known as Article 50. The powers that the legal person of the EU had in 2009 were unimaginably different - and larger - than what the EU as an organisation had in 1993.

In essence, the EC of 1975 ceased to exist in 1993, but part of what it did became part of the powers of a much larger, different body in 1993... and then that all happened again in 2007 (enacted in 2009). What the UK voted to remain part of in 1975 was a coal, steel and nuclear energy trading bloc. What it voted to leave in 2016 was, legally, a person.

The power bloat is part of why so many people, even in seemingly Europhilic states, are intensely suspicious of the EU - and of what powers it will try to gain next. It doesn't take much of a shove to get people to believe it wants its own army.


And Euratom still exists, and is actually independent of the European Parliament because it was a different pillar from the one that the EU emerged from.

But I'm not convinced of the second paragraph. What Brexit are they going to deliver?

It doesn't really matter. They can show they've tried to deliver Brexit repeatedly and the opposition parties have blocked it repeatedly. The advertising can say "vote Conservative to get Brexit done" and that's the majority right there.

 

[baldgye]

Very much so. The EU was just a thing we were in like NATO or the UN, and an occasional punchline about bureaucracy (like H&S)... and then it wasn't. I don't really know how or why, but it was like suddenly "the Germans are taking over Europe like they tried to in WW2!!!!". And you don't exactly need to stoke up anti-German sentiment in the UK (or at least in England) because Hitler, despite the fact that the German people were Hitler's first victims.

An EC survey called "Eurobarometer" actually shows it too. The survey's peak of 52% of citizens with a good impression of the EU came in... 2007. Since then it's fallen down progressively to the low 30s, although there's been a mild uptick since last year. There's number of other questions too, including trust in the EU. For sheer comedy value, the UK and Germany are tied on 63% distrust, behind only France, Austria and Greece. Seems we have more in common with the Germans than some would like to think

Do you have links to analysis of this? I'd be interested to read into it. The EU site has an overwhelming amount of info. I found this but it's hard to really parse all the info.


EDIT: actually did some more digging;

Seems 2007 is a year of downward trend, but couldn't this also be accounted for by the 2007 financial crisis? Membership a good and Membership has brought benefits measurements seem to actually drop significantly in 2006 rather than 2007... whereas Trust in EU has consistently fluctuated

via

Indeed, but who does? Ask most people what the difference is between the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union, and the Council of Europe, and you're not likely to get a right answer (especially between the last, baffling three). It seems designed to confuse.

A big problem is Lisbon - which took a few goes to get through every state (they voted again until the EU got the right answer) - complicated things intensely.

In fact the EU was originally very simple. The first component of the EU was a coal and steel trading bloc in 1957. When we voted in the referendum in 1975 to remain in that bloc, it had become a trading bloc for coal and steel, nuclear power and research, and money, now known as the EC (European Communities). It was in fact three organisations operating as one by then: the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), the EAEC (Atomic Energy) and the EEC (Economic Community).

By 1993, the EC had emerged from the EEC - and note that this was a different EC (Community, rather than Communities) than the EC of 1975, as the EAEC, now known as Euratom, still existed. That EC, with Maastricht, become one pillar of three in the EU (Union), along with the CFSP (foreign security policy) and PJCCM (policing and judicial). The EC pillar of the EU dealt with healthcare, citizenship, agriculture, fisheries, competition law, the environment, free movement, immigration, and money. The CFSP dealt with peacekeeping, human rights, foreign aid and defence policy, while PJCCM dealt with crime, including organised crime, drug smuggling, people trafficking, fraud and terrorism. Maastricht also established the EMU and thus the Euro.

It was all a far cry from coal and steel trading! The powers that the EU had in 1993 were unimaginably different than what the EC had in 1975.

The Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 kicked all that up a notch. It abolished the pillars and created the EU as a "legal person" (so that the EU on its own could be party to treaties), bringing in new powers, new administrative bodies, a change in voting procedure (qualified majority), the adoption of the central bank as an EU entity, the Court of Justice, and so on. Amusingly, one of the new things brought in by Lisbon was the withdrawal procedure known as Article 50. The powers that the legal person of the EU had in 2009 were unimaginably different - and larger - than what the EU as an organisation had in 1993.

In essence, the EC of 1975 ceased to exist in 1993, but part of what it did became part of the powers of a much larger, different body in 1993... and then that all happened again in 2007 (enacted in 2009). What the UK voted to remain part of in 1975 was a coal, steel and nuclear energy trading bloc. What it voted to leave in 2016 was, legally, a person.

The power bloat is part of why so many people, even in seemingly Europhilic states, are intensely suspicious of the EU - and of what powers it will try to gain next. It doesn't take much of a shove to get people to believe it wants its own army.


And Euratom still exists, and is actually independent of the European Parliament because it was a different pillar from the one that the EU emerged from.

Not really arguing against this as I don't know, but I've never seen it brought up in any TV debate or political exchange between the 'sides'.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I seem to have read a lot of angry gammon ranting about how there's no point in voting since the result won't be respected...

... I look forward to them not voting.

..

Anyway..

What chance a vote of no confidence in Corbyn before election time?

 

[Lizard]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...A_xxzIiCrJdKVVvzbs9aHEUpb0#Echobox=1572363275


And there may be no election yet.

Do the Tories actually want an election or only if it's on their terms?

 

[Famine]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...A_xxzIiCrJdKVVvzbs9aHEUpb0#Echobox=1572363275


And there may be no election yet.

Do the Tories actually want an election or only if it's on their terms?

That's an odd thing to say given that it's Labour that's put forward the new terms of letting 16-year olds vote in a General Election - and avoiding any talk of GE for months. Only yesterday Labour was whining about a December election, saying that because it's cold and dark it'd limit turnout and it's a form of voter suppression. Seema Malhotra MP (Feltham) was particularly vocal about how December elections are voter suppression, which makes it all the odder that she won her seat in a by-election on December 15, 2011.

It's also an insane idea anyway, but more so because all of the constituency boundaries will have to be redrawn before the election can happen. All of them - and Labour (with the help of the Lib Dems) didn't agree to the last review of boundaries. It's basically gerrymandering.

 

[PeterJB]

It's basically "lower the voting age until there are enough teenagers to get Corbyn into no. 10"

 

[baldgye]

I have a real problem with allowing under 18yr olds to vote. I didn't think it was fair for the Scottish Indi-vote and I don't think it's correct in this instance either.

 

[Touring Mars]

And there may be no election yet.

Do the Tories actually want an election or only if it's on their terms?

Not "their terms" but the terms that currently exist in UK law... as alluded to above, it is the Labour Party who are seeking to change the law in order to hold the election on their terms.

If Labour wanted an election, they could have/should have voted for it last night - but they deliberately did not vote last night in order to force the Government to pursue an election via a one-line Bill (which is subject to any number of possible amendments) as opposed to via the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which would not have required a Bill to be passed, thus no amendments to laws pertaining to how elections are carried out).

The fact that Labour changed their minds after the vote last night even though the conditions they set for accepting an election had already been met (i.e. a 3 -month extension to Article 50 being formally granted by the EU) is pretty clear evidence that Labour are playing games.

 

[TheCracker]

I can't really work out what that reason is either - we'd had dumb stories in the Daily Mail about straight bananas, throwing fish back because of quotas, and excessively blemished potatoes (replacing "health and safety gone mad!" and conkers) for years to that point, but everything changed in 2007.

Baby boomers started retiring and the devil finds work for idle hands?

 

[Lizard]

That's an odd thing to say given that it's Labour that's put forward the new terms of letting 16-year olds vote in a General Election - and avoiding any talk of GE for months. Only yesterday Labour was whining about a December election, saying that because it's cold and dark it'd limit turnout and it's a form of voter suppression. Seema Malhotra MP (Feltham) was particularly vocal about how December elections are voter suppression, which makes it all the odder that she won her seat in a by-election on December 15, 2011.

It's also an insane idea anyway, but more so because all of the constituency boundaries will have to be redrawn before the election can happen. All of them - and Labour (with the help of the Lib Dems) didn't agree to the last review of boundaries. It's basically gerrymandering.

Not "their terms" but the terms that currently exist in UK law... as alluded to above, it is the Labour Party who are seeking to change the law in order to hold the election on their terms.

If Labour wanted an election, they could have/should have voted for it last night - but they deliberately did not vote last night in order to force the Government to pursue an election via a one-line Bill (which is subject to any number of possible amendments) as opposed to via the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which would not have required a Bill to be passed, thus no amendments to laws pertaining to how elections are carried out).

The fact that Labour changed their minds after the vote last night even though the conditions they set for accepting an election had already been met (i.e. a 3 -month extension to Article 50 being formally granted by the EU) is pretty clear evidence that Labour are playing games.

You both mistake me for saying Labour want an election. I never said that.

Still I concede you both do have points.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Speaker has rejected amendments that proposed to change the voting age and to give EU nationals a vote.

There is, however, an amendment that would move the election date to December 9th, which the opposition prefers...

 

[Famine]

You both mistake me for saying Labour want an election. I never said that.

Mmm, no - and I don't think anyone would say that, because it's quite apparent that they don't.

It's more that you just said "Do the Tories actually want an election or only if it's on their terms?" because the Government has baulked at Labour's proposed changes to allow teenagers and non-citizen 'settled status' EU members to vote in the general election, after weeks of blocking a general election and refusing any of the moves it could make to force one (all the while saying Johnson is not fit to lead the country and is an unelected Prime Minister). The Conservatives have been actively trying to seek a General Election, it's Labour that is seeking to change the terms.

As well it should, because if it doesn't do something, it's dead. Apparently Corbyn's advisors have been trying to stop him from falling into Johnson's election trap, but apparently he broke loose today and did. That's the reason behind the amendments - the advisors trying to prevent the GE that will kill them from happening.



... so long as we can make impossible terms and demands, like redrawing all the constituency boundaries to reflect the new voter numbers in the next 8 weeks WAIT NOT LIKE THAT.

 

[baldgye]

Mmm, no - and I don't think anyone would say that, because it's quite apparent that they don't.

It's more that you just said "Do the Tories actually want an election or only if it's on their terms?" because the Government has baulked at Labour's proposed changes to allow teenagers and non-citizen 'settled status' EU members to vote in the general election, after weeks of blocking a general election and refusing any of the moves it could make to force one (all the while saying Johnson is not fit to lead the country and is an unelected Prime Minister). The Conservatives have been actively trying to seek a General Election, it's Labour that is seeking to change the terms.

As well it should, because if it doesn't do something, it's dead. Apparently Corbyn's advisors have been trying to stop him from falling into Johnson's election trap, but apparently he broke loose today and did. That's the reason behind the amendments - the advisors trying to prevent the GE that will kill them from happening.



... so long as we can make impossible terms and demands, like redrawing all the constituency boundaries to reflect the new voter numbers in the next 8 weeks WAIT NOT LIKE THAT.

Sounds more like a campaign for Brexit than it does a Labour government... still not sure how No Deal is off the table... unless the paperwork literally fell off his table...

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't take much of a shove to get people to believe it wants its own army.

Not really a shove at all.

STRASBOURG — German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday endorsed the creation of an EU army, siding with French President Emmanuel Macron whose similar call in recent days drew a fusillade of wrathful tweets from U.S. President Donald Trump.

Merkel threw her support behind the idea in an address to the European Parliament, part of a series of leaders' speeches on the future of Europe.


"Jean-Claude Juncker already said that a common European army would show the world that there would never again be war in Europe," Merkel said, referring to the European Commission president, who was in the Parliament chamber.

"This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO," Merkel said. At the same time, Merkel noted that Europe faces numerous logistical obstacles to greater military and defense integration, including too many different weapons systems — more than 150 by her count, compared to 50 or 60 in the U.S.

Still, she said it is imperative that the EU pursue such integration, echoing Macron's view that Europe could no longer count on the United States. And she said that the EU needs to invoke treaty provisions that allow decisions to be taken by a qualified majority of member countries, without the customary unanimity that often blocks security and defense initiatives.

 

[Famine]

Not really a shove at all.

Indeed, and it has been talked about for a while, but it's extremely difficult to get off the ground. Without the UK... almost impossible. The European nations can't even manage their 2% defence budget as required by NATO, and without the UK's considerable armed forces (land, sea and air), quite what the EU could muster is... probably a matter of some hilarity.

For reference, Germany could muster a maximum of 23 Typhoons. It has 128 of them, but all but 39 are broken. That's no problem, because it only has 23 pilots. The UK has more Typhoons than that operational at Coningsby alone, and we've got seven other Typhoon bases. We have a large fighter fleet (of F35s) on the first of our two aircraft carriers. The rest of Europe combined has two aircraft carriers.

 

[Liquid]

Election results will be Friday 13th. You couldn't pick a more apt date for this omnishambles.

 

[Biggles]

Reading with interest the comments about the cluster**** that is Brexit. My take-away (please correct me if I'm wrong on any point):

1) The Tories have enough votes in enough constituencies to win a majority.

2) The Lib Dems don't have enough focused support in enough constituencies to eat into the Tory majority, even in conjunction with the SNP.

3) Labour, with Corbyn at the helm, are too conflicted about Brexit & too far to the left to muster enough support to eat into the Tory majority.

4) Traditional Labour voting will hang in there enough to prevent Labour from falling behind the Lib Dems.

5) Remainers have no real clear voting option other than the Lib Dems (& SNP).

Question: what are the election prospects of Tory MPs who have identified as Remainers, or at least soft-Brexiteers ... & what would their status be in a Tory party dominated by BJ?

 

[mustafur]

Labour is finished if they don't support remain. With the Conservative side firmly in the leave column people know what they're voting for on that side.

Where as Labour's normal base will likely get split 6 ways from Sunday.

Lib Dems will likely get a big win atleast from Londoners.

SNP and Lib Dems should do a coalition or is that a risky option for England voters with the whole Scottish independence thing?

 

[PzR Slim]

Reading with interest the comments about the cluster**** that is Brexit. My take-away (please correct me if I'm wrong on any point):

1) The Tories have enough votes in enough constituencies to win a majority.

2) The Lib Dems don't have enough focused support in enough constituencies to eat into the Tory majority, even in conjunction with the SNP.

3) Labour, with Corbyn at the helm, are too conflicted about Brexit & too far to the left to muster enough support to eat into the Tory majority.

4) Traditional Labour voting will hang in there enough to prevent Labour from falling behind the Lib Dems.

5) Remainers have no real clear voting option other than the Lib Dems (& SNP).

Question: what are the election prospects of Tory MPs who have identified as Remainers, or at least soft-Brexiteers ... & what would their status be in a Tory party dominated by BJ?

That's pretty much how I see it. Tories will get a majority, we'll get the hardest of Brexits because they will be scared of the Brexit Party taking their votes. And I'll wake up on Friday 13 to a horror show and no longer want to be in the country I call home. And for what...

 

[baldgye]

That's pretty much how I see it. Tories will get a majority, we'll get the hardest of Brexits because they will be scared of the Brexit Party taking their votes. And I'll wake up on Friday 13 to a horror show and no longer want to be in the country I call home. And for what...

If the Torys get a majority we'll take The deal May got. It'll ruin the country and we'll struggle to get trade deals that'll push us closer and closer to the brink. At which point the UK will be back in the 1970s again, except when we rejoin the EU we'll be required to take on the Euro.
The lead campaigners for Brexit will have retired to their foreign homes more wealthy than they ever imagined while the rest of the country is ravaged by the economic and social impact of Brexit.


I can see the Lib Dems getting enough support for a coalition. With Labour splitting some of the confused middle ground from older generations to reduce the Tory majority. I also think The Brexit Party will take votes away from the Tories and distil their base a little further.
Remainers have the clearest vote, Lib Dems might as well be a single issue party. But Labour and Conservatives both offer confused and conflicting ideas about Brexit.

 

[Touring Mars]

Reading with interest the comments about the cluster**** that is Brexit. My take-away (please correct me if I'm wrong on any point):

1) The Tories have enough votes in enough constituencies to win a majority.

2) The Lib Dems don't have enough focused support in enough constituencies to eat into the Tory majority, even in conjunction with the SNP.

3) Labour, with Corbyn at the helm, are too conflicted about Brexit & too far to the left to muster enough support to eat into the Tory majority.

4) Traditional Labour voting will hang in there enough to prevent Labour from falling behind the Lib Dems.

5) Remainers have no real clear voting option other than the Lib Dems (& SNP).

Here's my predicitions:

The SNP will sweep the board in Scotland (as they have done in the past), wiping out 13 Tory seats.

Labour will lose a tonne of seats because their Brexit policy is so ridiculous, the anti-Semitism row and Corbyn's general unpopularity.

Lib Dems will make gains from moderate Tory voters unhappy with the prospect of a hard(er) Brexit or even No Deal, and because they are crystal clear on Brexit (revoke Article 50).

The Brexit Party are the unknown quantity - they could seriously damage the Tory vote (already down by up to 13 seats by wipe out in Scotland) unless there is a pact between them and the Tories. I reckon they could take a decent amount of Leave constituencies from both Labour and the Tories.

All in all, I don't think the Tories will do much better than under May - remember, May actually got a much bigger slice of the popular vote than her predecessor, but got fewer seats (and lost her majority in the process)... I reckon Johnson could get a similar result.

My numbers would look similar to @Famine's above, but I reckon the Brexit Party will get quite a lot more than 5 seats - I reckon the Tories could fall just short of an overall majority (say 320 seats) and the BP on 30-35 seats.

Question: what are the election prospects of Tory MPs who have identified as Remainers, or at least soft-Brexiteers ... & what would their status be in a Tory party dominated by BJ?

Good question - I reckon any Tory who still backs Remain will have a very hard time convincing the electorate to vote for them, so it is probably something of a moot point. Full Remainer Tories have already jumped ship and/or will not be standing in this election anyway.

The big question is what will Remain voters who voted Tory do in this election? My guess is that they will vote Lib Dem or Independent now (or SNP in Scotland) and this section of their vote will probably cost the Tories their shot at an overall majority.

 

[mustafur]

With Johnson being soo Pro Brexit though you think it would take a bit of power away from the Brexit Party given that voting Tory is basically the same thing, I think by the Tories having Boris as leader it nullifies the Brexit party threat that would of been very real under May.

What are the odds that Lib Dems actually overtake Labour though?
They have fully committed to Remain and that is a Huge slice of electorate that Labour is refusing to take.

 

[baldgye]

With Johnson being soo Pro Brexit though you think it would take a bit of power away from the Brexit Party given that voting Tory is basically the same thing, I think by the Tories having Boris as leader it nullifies the Brexit party threat that would of been very real under May.

I think he would have if this GE was before his ‘deal’ and him (in principle) ruling out No-Deal. But I think those two will only further help divide the pro-Brexit voters

 

[Liquid]

I reckon the Tories could fall just short of an overall majority (say 320 seats) and the BP on 30-35 seats.

Not dissimilar to my own thoughts.

---

Wales is an open call. It really could go either way but the most likely outcome is a decimated Labour vote. Plaid are persuading a lot of Labour voters and especially those who are just "indy curious" but with Wales about 20 years behind Scotland in terms of an independence movement, Plaid is a long way behind the SNP in terms of major seat winning ability.

I expect a lot of Wales to go blue where it was previously traditionally red, particularly my own North East Wales.

Majority in Alyn & Deeside (Labour) is 1,500
Majority in Delyn (Labour) is 4,200
Majority in Wrexham (Labour) is 1,800
Majority in Vale of Clwyd (Labour) is 2,300

All of those could be reasonably overturned, with Delyn being the strongest to resist. Vale of Clwyd actually went Tory in 2015 and back to Labour in 2017.

The only currently extant Tory seat in North East Wales is Clwyd West, with a relatively healthy majority of 3, 400. The Brexit Party has already announced its candidacy in Clwyd West so it remains to be seen how split the Leave vote is.

The electoral pact between Labour-Plaid-Lib Dem on not contesting each other's constituencies has been mooted but they tried it in the Assembly elections and it didn't work. No-one could agree on who gets the coffee.

 

[PeterJB]

The Valleys will never vote Tory but based on the EU elections The Brexit Party could do well there.