|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 21:35:11 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 21:35:11 GMT
And if you lose a referendum on introducing sharia law, simply revoke it? I certainly would. Doing that would be accepting, to some extent, that we couldn't act as if we lived in a liberal democracy. (This is why it's controversial for a lot of LDs.) However, if a plurality voted in favour of introducing sharia law, I hope we can all agree that we wouldn't be living in a liberal democracy, and revocation alone wouldn't be enough - it would have to be the start of a more interventionist agenda.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 21:30:53 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 21:30:53 GMT
"All this "dodgy bar chart" crap from Labour. A bar chart showing actual information in support of a claim to be able to win is perfectly fair and in FPTP necessary, and I am being deluged with them by Labour and Greens." It's well documented that in some constituencies the LDs are quite irresponsibly & falsely making out that they can beat the Tories & Labour can't. OBVIOUSLY it's true in my constituency, and in some others. But it simply isn't in some seats. Naturally not all bar-charts are dodgy, but there are multiple incidences of them being used highly misleadingly by the LDs in this election ( more so than ever before - there's been a problem in this regard for some years) and that's what I'm referring to. This is the part I'm not particularly sure about, but I'd be interested to know if it's true (is it really more so than e.g. 2015?). I'm not happy with the few that have been flat-out incorrect (though there have been plenty from other parties doing the same thing, that doesn't make it ok), but in general extrapolating e.g. European elections data to suggest a general election victory in a given seat to indicate that the LDs *can* win here is a valid exercise in fighting FPTP (which artificially depresses the votes of smaller parties right up until the point where they've campaigned hard enough to overtake the 2nd party and surge). It has certainly led to fewer attacks on Labour than would otherwise have been present. Given that the LDs were arguably responsible for it, I don't think it's fair to argue they should have considered it an act of political courage on Labour's part. Re: Corbyn and authoritarianism, I also don't believe Britain would become a "communist shithole" even if he had a majority government, but he does have some seriously authoritarian and centralising tendencies (e.g. on surveillance), though in some ways he is a fair bit more socially liberal than Blairites and Brownites. That is probably by the by in reference to your problems with the LDs, but these aspects of policy are worth criticising, and I expect liberal social democrats would approve of a fair bit more of his economic platform f it was being done by empowered local governments rather than at the state level. As it stands, I fear some worthy attempts at fighting inequality will rack up gross inefficiencies which in turn could compound the woes of our next recession. Not much else to add that Adam in Stroud hasn't already said, but since WW2 the LDs have formed many more governments with Labour than with the Conservatives (confidence and supply for Wilson II and Callaghan I, the first two Scottish administrations, the 2000-2003 Morgan administration in Wales, and the current Welsh administration). I think it's very probable they wouldn't back this Conservative administration, but I can't guarantee that given Davey's comments and the slim but real chance of Boris Johnson managing to get a second referendum through Parliament (I wish I could, being on the left of the party myself). I can estimate with reasonable confidence that most of the ways in which he'd try to emulate Trump (voter suppression etc) would be anathema to our MPs and expect it'd be voted down even if his government had been allowed to survive until then. If the issue of whether the LDs will back a Johnson government in itself would decide the vote for you, I'd recommend asking Sarah Olney what she'd do, as any vote in RP is primarily a vote for her, not Jo Swinson or the national attack leaflets. Edit: I realise the 'ask Olney/vote locally' thing is a bit of a Winning Here message, but I'm quite serious. We can agree that our former party leaderships are crap in one way or another, and they're only succeeding because they rely on loyal voters thinking that the other side (their leadership, that is) is worse. If we want to fix that situation and stop rewarding failure, we need to vote locally and install better potential leadership figures for the future. I quite like my MP and may yet vote for them on this basis.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 16:30:12 GMT
I was primarily interested in your answer to the hypothetical ('only Lab vs Tory') - what do you consider more authoritarian than that in the Labour proposals? What's authoritarian about tackling electoral fraud? Nothing in principle, but using that as a pretext to commit electoral fraud is extremely authoritarian. The vague promise to tackle "postal vote harvesting" may tackle small-scale corruption in local elections (which in itself is dubious) but personation isn't an issue and the ID card scheme proposals we've seen do not include automatic distribution of these ID cards. What they do achieve is the suppression of turnout amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged, which is why a party formerly against ID cards being in use for other purposes is now (under an authoritarian leader) in favour of the wheeze. I left over revoke, but the party still opposes the snooper's charter despite an increasing number of 'progressives' in other parties being in favour of their own version. It still supports freedom of speech - though some of its representatives may well condemn rhetoric in a way you or I disagree with, they're not calling for it to be legally restricted. I'd prefer a bigger commitment than what is in the manifesto to further expansion of this particular freedom, but they're definitely the most in favour of it.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 16:02:48 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 16:02:48 GMT
...so you're voting for the party which promises voter suppression in its manifesto. No I'm not voting for that party. And I know it's a choice between an authoritarian communist shithole and an authoritarian statist-capitalist shithole. I was primarily interested in your answer to the hypothetical ('only Lab vs Tory') - what do you consider more authoritarian than that in the Labour proposals?
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 15:58:51 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 15:58:51 GMT
I don't think you understand his position. What are "that lot" from your perspective and beyond the pale, are still not as bad as "the other lot". That's not tribalism, it's making difficult decisions. Fortunately I have an acceptable third option so don't have to make that choice, but if I were confronted with an absolute choice of Johnson or Corbyn I too would have to come down on the side of Corbyn, because in my mind Johnson is the worst choice ever put before the long suffering people of this unfortunate land. Labour isn't even in contention where he's living. And given a choice between Corbyn and any Tory, always the Tory. I don't want the UK to become an authoritarian communist shithole. ...so you're voting for the party which promises voter suppression in its manifesto.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 15:12:21 GMT
I'm reading this thread with a certain amount of bemusement. There were all sorts of legitimate grievances that Luciana Berger etc had with Labour; but apparently these should be ditched in favour of Brexit denial. Yes, the Funny Tinge should have avoided screwing up by focusing solely on their biggest screw-up of all! CHUK came out for revoke when we rejected it. Stopping Brexit was at the front and centre of their agenda, which was otherwise relatively empty (besides combating racism).
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 1, 2019 15:06:01 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 15:06:01 GMT
At the end of the day, these sorts of decisions are made according to a tricky political calculus further warped by others' attempts to induce fear of alternative choices. I think you just have to ask yourself what your red lines are, grasp those answers, and stick to them - I've found myself less susceptible to attempts to persuade me to stay loyal no matter what once I've already done that.
In a way, I suppose it's a bit like being in a troubled home having made the decision to stay together for the kids, which is only sustainable as long as the relationship doesn't deteriorate beyond a certain, previously envisioned point.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 14:49:13 GMT
Let's suppose all the defectors to CHUK join the Lib Dems on day one. The Lib Dems win the Euro elections. Now on course for PM Swinson. Probably not even if all else held true. Where it would change everything is in terms of parliamentary arithmetic. If they'd voted in line with our whip (instead of the CHUK whip, which was to vote against everything except revoke and a second referendum) on the indicative votes (which for some options was a free vote, in which case it is safest to infer how they'd vote from their history), there would have probably been a majority for the Customs Union option in the Commons, and quite possibly one for CM2.0, as well. I don't think that would have been enough to persuade May to compromise on her deal by bringing in a customs union option, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. If she had, who can say we'd still be a member of the EU by now, and would her replacement have taken over so soon?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 1, 2019 14:43:07 GMT
That's the point. And still he can't help himself but vote for that lot.
And by doing so he perpetuates the problem. I can't speak for Barnaby, but plenty of voters I know are picking a party that is increasingly disappointing to them because they consider the alternatives which they believe to be realistic worse. This is not necessarily tribal but could have resulted from damnation of the wider field. Rational or otherwise, being brought to this decision point indicates the triumph of mediocrities across the spectrum, and by extension the politics of fear which surrounds them. No matter which party, if any, 'wins' this election, the real winners will be the powerbrokers who resent democracy, scrutiny and accountability.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 23:53:15 GMT
All this is both too early to say and assumes ChUK was any sort of catalyst. Things could look very different by November. Well, didn’t this turn out to be true! To the extent that the trend has reversed, it has only done so after Labour was strong-armed into supporting a confirmatory referendum.
|
|
|
YouGov
Nov 30, 2019 22:14:18 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 22:14:18 GMT
If it was Blair it would be a walkover A Blair win would effectively be a Tory win - so a waste of time from a lefy of centre perspective. And yet I know several formerly avowed socialists who are now mentioning 'Blair sans Iraq' with the faintest tones of approval, which makes a change from 2017.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 21:23:04 GMT
Given that "even" YouGov now have the Tory lead down to 9%, is there anybody on the entire planet who doesn't think this one is utter junk? I don't. Outliers aren't inherently junk.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 21:02:06 GMT
Some interesting findings beneath the toplines about who undecided voters (16% of voters, currently) are considering:
Undecided remain voters: LD 53% CON 38% LAB 36% GRN 18% BxP 2% Independent 9%
Undecided leave voters: CON 65% LAB 23% LD 17% GRN 17% BxP 16% Independent 15%
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 20:54:23 GMT
Cons 45 (+2) Lab 32 (+2) LD 15 (-1) BXP 3. (n/c) 13% lead. Added swings from the last Deltapoll, 21-23 Nov.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 20:25:10 GMT
Seven consecutive polls with perfectly aligned 13%s. Maybe the stars have aligned for the pollsters, or maybe they're herding. In either case, the standard deviation seems too low. If they were herding wouldn’t they focus on the Con/Lab numbers? They’re the ones that get the most attention and matter in terms of who ‘wins’. Perhaps there's a bit more pressure there. I just would have expected a bit more variation for an average of 13%.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 20:19:18 GMT
Seven consecutive polls with perfectly aligned 13%s. Maybe the stars have aligned for the pollsters, or maybe they're herding. In either case, the standard deviation seems too low.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 19:13:54 GMT
The 5% drop in the Lib Dem vote is very telling too. I voted Lib Dem back in May but I’ll probably end up voting Labour because Boris is far more repellent to me than Corbyn. The you will get what you deserve! That's not helping.
|
|
|
BMG
Nov 30, 2019 18:56:17 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 18:56:17 GMT
The Green vote may be inflated because of a number of free runs given by LD/Plaid Cymru (in which case you're dealing more with a need to squeeze extra LD/Plaid voters). I'm sceptical, the Greens are only getting free runs as part of he Remain Alliance in (to my knowledge) a small handful of seats which obviously includes Brighton Pavilion where there was no Lib Dem candidate last time and the Isle of Wight where the Lb Dem vote was meagre. In Wales they are only getting a free run in (randomly) the Vale of Glamorgan which is rubbish for the Libs and Plaid anyway. This wont amount to much of anything in national polls, honestly I imagine all this equals at best an extra 10,000 votes that the Greens didn't get in 2017.
Indeed this is easily outweighed by the Greens overall tally of contested seats which has increased by 40 from 2017 up to 497 but this is 50% down to Scotland where the Greens only contested two seats in 2017 but are now contesting 22. Even if they only manage 1-2% in all these Scottish seats that's and extra 20 odd thousand votes and easily outweighs the extra support they'd get from Plaid and the Lib Dems standing aside in a couple of seats.
So yeah I don't buy the argument that the Green vote is inflated by several points cos of some mythical hundreds of thousands of additional votes from Plaid and Lib Dem supporters who will stubbornly back the Greens come what may. Makes no sense at all.
I don't think the Remain alliance is responsible for all or even most of it, but getting a free run in a constituency like Dulwich can could deliver up to 10k+ votes by itself (that figure will be even higher in Bristol West). They get sole access to the 'anti-Tory, but never Labour' section of the electorate in 10 constituencies (I had thought they'd been given more) which should lead to some very outsized Green vote shares. That the parties are now contesting more seats will be a more significant factor.
|
|
|
BMG
Nov 30, 2019 18:42:59 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 18:42:59 GMT
Another poll showing a small uptick for the BXP. The Brexit Party doing better at this stage than UKIP were in 2017 (a low bar I know). Remember BXP is standing in less than half the seats so 4% here is equivalent to around 8% without the seat filter. Probably higher than that given that the seats they've stood down in are somewhat more likely than the ones they're standing in to have voted Leave.
|
|
|
BMG
Nov 30, 2019 18:26:59 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 30, 2019 18:26:59 GMT
Forgive my maths but 650 - 8 SF - 1 speaker = 641 641/ 2 = 320.5, therefore 321 for a majority 10 DUP + 311 Tory = 321 Therefore Tory minority on c&s. Unlikely but perfectly plausible for the DUP to lose Belfast North, hold south on a perfect SDLP-ALL vote split and gain North Down. Resulting in this 10 DUP-8SF split a. The DUP won't support Johnson's deal, even with bribes. b. While Tory candidates have pledged support for Johnson's deal some may feel that their obligation is lifted if adjustments are required to suit the DUP.
c. While Labour would produce a deal that better suited the DUP I can't see a circumstance in which they would give any support to a Labour minority government (or be asked for that support).
a. The DUP will not support his deal, and have said they will not support a Conservative government, but they could be bribed to abstain or vote for his govenrment on a negative basis against "the alternative Corbyn-led government". That's still C&S, it's just hilariously dysfunctional over Brexit. b. Agreed. c. Foster did not rule out (though she was never explicitly asked) the DUP abstaining on a Labour confidence motion - she just said she wouldn't vote in favour of one IIRC.
|
|