UK General Election, June 8th 2017

[Shadows]

If people find anything wrong with Corbyn's statement on terror, it is probably because they live in an alternate world or are really a terrible person. (you can find faults with his stance on NATO or IRA etc) The latter is pretty likely as most conservative & conservative voters really are terrible (look at the Montana election in US !) but most of these older voters will die & be replaced by Corbyn style raging liberal young voters.

No sane person can argue against the fact that the war on Iraq has killed millions of people, butchered children & has created ISIS - Kids grew up seeing their schools bombed, their parents killed - They are easy picking as foot soldiers for all terrorists. These idiots should go & study the fragine Shia-Sunni balance in Iraq (Saddam was secular) before over-throwing governments. The Iraq war is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS. Libya is now a terror haven & ISIS training camp, thanks to the "humanitarian effort". And how can you fight terrorists when you support giving weapons to Saudi Arabia, the intellectual think-tank for radicalism throughout the world.

Fighting radicalism? What is this - An alternate world? Why was Mossadegh, a secular democratic elected leader killed in Iran? Because he wanted to nationalize the oil for his people & then went against today's BP. He was replaced by a brutal corrupt killing dictator in the Shah!

[thumb21]

Interesting new feature from Electoral Calculus.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/datamap.html

Unsurprised by my postcode area's results.

[Silent Hunter]

most of these older voters will die & be replaced by Corbyn style raging liberal young voters.

Who will likely get more conservative as they grow up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fewer in eight years than Syria in five

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nearly all done by the terrorists. Also Daesh was formed in Syria.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He may be a mass murderer, but he's a secular mass murderer?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More I'd say that we didn't assist after we'd removed Gaddaffi.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

tbf I am not a fan of Corbyn at all, but he didn't use it but rather put forward his political insight to how to fight terror the Tories responded in a campaign manner if anything

Quite so. To be honest I did *gulp* a little bit on hearing that he had decided to do a speech on that issue, but he said nothing that I've not heard from rather a lot of people (many of them not exactly lefties!) recently and said it a pretty mature and reasonable manner.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This isn't part of Theresa May's grand plan to boost turnout- she's ran a boring, useless campaign, and it frankly shows that there is no-one at the top who's got any GE experience.

Yes the 'it's good news for the Tories that their lead has dramatically shrunk' take is an... odd... one. Of course they are still in position for a solid win, but that isn't what they were looking for from the election.

[Barnes]

This isn't part of Theresa May's grand plan to boost turnout- she's ran a boring, useless campaign, and it frankly shows that there is no-one at the top who's got any GE experience.

Yes the 'it's good news for the Tories that their lead has dramatically shrunk' take is an... odd... one. Of course they are still in position for a solid win, but that isn't what they were looking for from the election.

The thought of obliterating Labour made them far too giddy for their own good! General elections in general usually go out of control, but snap elections in particular.

On a side note, it was good to see Prescott out in the old form this week.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's still just under two weeks to go so much can change, but if anyone who doesn't live here is wondering why the tone has changed so much recently then this gives a pretty good summary.

[Blair]

I mean there's a situation where Labour could get between 200-230 seats; and the Tories only get 320-330, which would lead to the May getting putsched by her own party; and Corbyn surviving on until conference, or until next year.

I still think the big problem is that everyone is looking at the national vote share; the local elections, combined with Copeland+the regional polling still makes me think that we could end up with Cons 43: Lab 35, and still see some ridiculously lopsided results.

FWIW: The most recent YouGov had Labour getting 11% of the UKIP vote. This will save them from any big landslide (e.g getting less than 150 seats).

I've spend the last day just realizing that I don't understand this election at all.

[parochial boy]

IRA stuff

I dare say that, to the average person under the age of 45, who have barely any recollection/experience of the troubles, talking about the IRA are basically irrelevant. On the flip side, people over the age of 45 are already voting Tory.

So the "IRA! IRA!" argument isn't going to land as heavily as people think.

[Silent Hunter]

I dare say that, to the average person under the age of 45, who have barely any recollection/experience of the troubles

The Good Friday Agreement was only 19 years ago. So people in their 30s would remember that.

[parochial boy]

IRA stuff

I dare say that, to the average person under the age of 45, who have barely any recollection/experience of the troubles, talking about the IRA are basically irrelevant. On the flip side, people over the age of 45 are already voting Tory.

So the "IRA! IRA!" argument isn't going to land as heavily as people think.

True that, but 45+ plus voters particularly 55+ turn out in big numbers in comparison to young voters

Yeah, of course, but if, as it seems, the difference between a crushing defeat and a respectable score for Labour is being able to get, mostly younger, previous non-voters to turn out - then the IRA argument won't have as much weight as people thing

[Silent Hunter]

YouGov's final pre-2015 poll was 34-34... it of course ended up 37-30...

[mvd10]

I mean there's a situation where Labour could get between 200-230 seats; and the Tories only get 320-330, which would lead to the May getting putsched by her own party; and Corbyn surviving on until conference, or until next year.

I still think the big problem is that everyone is looking at the national vote share; the local elections, combined with Copeland+the regional polling still makes me think that we could end up with Cons 43: Lab 35, and still see some ridiculously lopsided results.

FWIW: The most recent YouGov had Labour getting 11% of the UKIP vote. This will save them from any big landslide (e.g getting less than 150 seats).

I've spend the last day just realizing that I don't understand this election at all.

Who would be in the best position to suceed her if that happens? I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson would win. Rudd probably is too close to May and Hammond doesn't seem really interested (he's boring as hell anyway, but I'd gladly take him as PM tbh).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I dare say that, to the average person under the age of 45, who have barely any recollection/experience of the troubles, talking about the IRA are basically irrelevant. On the flip side, people over the age of 45 are already voting Tory.

So the "IRA! IRA!" argument isn't going to land as heavily as people think.

...and the thing that a lot of people have forgotten: in the 1980s and 90s rather a lot of people here were broadly sympathetic to Irish Republicanism, even if o/c not to the IRA.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

https://www.britaindecides.co.uk/single-post/2017/05/26/Election-Post-6-THAT-YouGov-poll Interesting analysis here

[Silent Hunter]

Yes. People are getting over-excited over a poll that suggests Labour would still lose. There are no points for coming second in a football match, regardless of whether it's 1-0 or 4-0...

[parochial boy]

Yes. People are getting over-excited over a poll that suggests Labour would still lose. There are no points for coming second in a football match, regardless of whether it's 1-0 or 4-0...

Man City won the 2011-12 premier league on goal difference

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Have the IRA hot take artists considered that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has the surname "McDonnell"? There's a very substantial number of people in Britain who have Irish ancestry or who are Catholic and they tend to be Labour voters. With this in mind, the idea that this issue is going to destroy Labour in its heartlands is very strange to me.

[Tirnam]

Yes. People are getting over-excited over a poll that suggests Labour would still lose. There are no points for coming second in a football match, regardless of whether it's 1-0 or 4-0...

Well, May called the election to secure a large conservative majority during the Brexit negotiations, didn't she?

If she gets the same weak majority, it could have consequences on her abilities to govern in one or two years, if the negotiations are chaotic or very hard. To use your analogy, losing 1-0 instead of 4-0 could mean a second leg earlier with a Labour in a stronger position.

[Silent Hunter]

The Conservative manifesto promises to repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act FWIW.

My analogy was pointing out that Labour would be able to implement none of their policies whether the majority was 20 or 200. Personally, I'm going for 50-100.

[cp]

Have the IRA hot take artists considered that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has the surname "McDonnell"? There's a very substantial number of people in Britain who have Irish ancestry or who are Catholic and they tend to be Labour voters. With this in mind, the idea that this issue is going to destroy Labour in its heartlands is very strange to me.

Whatever people's memories of the IRA are, it seems that a substantial majority agree with Corbyn's premise.

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/88c1aff0-41f4-11e7-94a8-2ab0a50a8b9c/question/a76fff10-41f4-11e7-aa59-c62e889b3830/toplines

"In a speech today Jeremy Corbyn will address "the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home". Do you believe that wars that the UK has supported or fought are or are not in part responsible for terror attacks against the UK?"

Wars the UK has supported or fought ARE responsible, at least in part, for terror attacks against the UK: 53%

Wars the UK has supported or fought ARE NOT responsible for terror attacks against the UK: 24%

Don't know: 23%

[Phony Moderate]

most of these older voters will die & be replaced by Corbyn style raging liberal young voters.

Who will likely get more conservative as they grow up.

We're already pretty 'conservative' - we're f***ed with student debt, dead-end jobs (or no jobs at all), uncertainty with Brexit etc. Many of us voting Labour are doing so for quite conservative reasons. If anything we'll become more Labour-friendly as time goes on.

Similarly the Baby Boomers have trended towards the Tories in large part due to them being more pensioner-friendly (well, at least until recently), rather than out of support for Austrian economics (lol).

[Phony Moderate]

Sir David Butler, the most experienced psephologist of all, was interviewed on Newsnight last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPfK7LKvUr8

[Blair]

I mean there's a situation where Labour could get between 200-230 seats; and the Tories only get 320-330, which would lead to the May getting putsched by her own party; and Corbyn surviving on until conference, or until next year.

I still think the big problem is that everyone is looking at the national vote share; the local elections, combined with Copeland+the regional polling still makes me think that we could end up with Cons 43: Lab 35, and still see some ridiculously lopsided results.

FWIW: The most recent YouGov had Labour getting 11% of the UKIP vote. This will save them from any big landslide (e.g getting less than 150 seats).

I've spend the last day just realizing that I don't understand this election at all.

Who would be in the best position to suceed her if that happens? I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson would win. Rudd probably is too close to May and Hammond doesn't seem really interested (he's boring as hell anyway, but I'd gladly take him as PM tbh).

Whilst my knowledge of Tory party inner workings is limited (they're much better at keeping a lid on it, than say Labour) it's clear there isn't an heir, either in Cabinet or as a backbencher.  It could purely end up being Boris on the basis that no-one else would want it; but his stock plunged after Brexit, he's disliked by a lot of Tory MPs and he's been a godawful Foreign Secretary.

I still reckon she'll win; but the reshuffle that's been briefed to happen afterwards will reveal a lot about what's happening. If she promotes Gove back he could somehow become PM in the future.

TL;DR: There's no one

[DC Al Fine]

Question for the UK pollsters. My understanding is that Labour's vote is distributed more efficiently than the Tories' (e.g. compare's Labour's majority in 2005 to the Tory results in 2010 and 2015). However, there has been some indication that traditionally Labour areas are trending Conservative. Will this have any effect on the relative efficiency of each party's vote?