Brexit delayed

[Stom]

So the Brexit party have thrown their support behind Boris. Now we know for sure that's the party of xenophobes.

The Lib Dems need to change their bloody campaign or risk it all. I will be absolutely livid with them if there's no deal on the back of their actions. And let's not pretend it isn't. If they try to take votes away from Labour and those seats go to the Brexit party, they've lost it all for no reason other than nonsense.

[Digby]

You could say the same thing about Labour and the Lib Dems in reverse, though I hope nobody would because they're neither Labour nor Lib Dem votes, they're the voters' votes. Fwiw I doubt the Lib Dems would be too cross if people were livid with them, the typical situation they find themselves in is being an irrelevance, so at least people being cross with them acknowledges their existence, before they go back to nothingness

[Sandydragon]

So the Brexit party have thrown their support behind Boris. Now we know for sure that's the party of xenophobes.

The Lib Dems need to change their bloody campaign or risk it all. I will be absolutely livid with them if there's no deal on the back of their actions. And let's not pretend it isn't. If they try to take votes away from Labour and those seats go to the Brexit party, they've lost it all for no reason other than nonsense.

All the anti-Brexit parties need to cooperate. The party with the best shot vs the Conservatives should be given a free run, regardless of which party it is.

Interestingly thought, Farage has agreed not to stand against existing Tory MPs, but will still compete in Labour and Liberal held areas. So that means that the Tories trying to keep their seats have an easier ride on the whole (although some will have Labour or Lib Dems breathing down their necks) but those seats which Boris is trying to take to actually form a majority will still have a Brexit party candidate as well. Farage has made it easier for the Conservatives to hold their current seats but not get a majority.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

[Son of Mathonwy]

I wonder how much of the Brexit party vote (in those Tory seats) will go to the Tories and how much to Ukip. After all, at the last election, essentially it was Ukip.

Farage's (fairly unsurprising - I wonder what he's getting for it?) capitulation to Boris is a blow for Labour (and everyone else), but Ukip could still pick up some of the Brexit vote and hurt the Tories.

[Digby]

Farage almost certainly didn't have the money to stand 600 candidates, and I'm damn sure he didn't have the candidates. Numbers 4 and 5 working down the list from the top tier Brexit Nationalist Party pool of talent are liable to say some odd things Farage will have to spend time trying to deflect, heaven only knows what racist, homophobic, misogynistic filth #600 would have been coming out with. And too the party didn't want to stand that many itself and was threatening revolt over Farage's assertion they would stand 600+

[Sandydragon]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

[Which Tyler]

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

They already have, haven't they? Except that labour were as interested in being involved as the Tories were with Garage.
Garages unilateral move may mean that the remain parties may be best off doing the same in places they'd be 3rd at best

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

Tried it for Lab, LD, PC and Greens. It takes 49 seats from Tories, 40 to Lab, 9 to LD.

For Lab, LD, PC, Greens & SNP - it takes 61 seats from Tories, 40 to Lab, 9 to LD, 12 to SNP (Tories would have only 1 Scottish seat).

[Puja]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

I think you're overestimating how much the voters would go for it too - the transferral rate would definitely not be one-for-one.

Swinson has been desperately avoiding any suggestion that she would form a coalition with Labour to avoid getting tarred with accusations that a vote for her is a vote for Corbyn and a lot of Labour pages and voters that I have seen are open in their contempt for the Lib Dems, calling them Yellow Tories, with Swindon being derided as a collaborator in austerity. I think it's entirely possible that removing the Lib Dem candidate would see people like Digby who couldn't stomach "Voting Corbyn" and removing the Labour candidate would see spoiled ballots as "It'd be voting for a Tory either way."

Puja

[Digby]

I'd probably vote Green if you removed the Lib Dem candidate

[Sandydragon]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

I think you're overestimating how much the voters would go for it too - the transferral rate would definitely not be one-for-one.

Swinson has been desperately avoiding any suggestion that she would form a coalition with Labour to avoid getting tarred with accusations that a vote for her is a vote for Corbyn and a lot of Labour pages and voters that I have seen are open in their contempt for the Lib Dems, calling them Yellow Tories, with Swindon being derided as a collaborator in austerity. I think it's entirely possible that removing the Lib Dem candidate would see people like Digby who couldn't stomach "Voting Corbyn" and removing the Labour candidate would see spoiled ballots as "It'd be voting for a Tory either way."

Puja

That’s a risk. But the alternative is obvious.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

I think you're overestimating how much the voters would go for it too - the transferral rate would definitely not be one-for-one.

Swinson has been desperately avoiding any suggestion that she would form a coalition with Labour to avoid getting tarred with accusations that a vote for her is a vote for Corbyn and a lot of Labour pages and voters that I have seen are open in their contempt for the Lib Dems, calling them Yellow Tories, with Swindon being derided as a collaborator in austerity. I think it's entirely possible that removing the Lib Dem candidate would see people like Digby who couldn't stomach "Voting Corbyn" and removing the Labour candidate would see spoiled ballots as "It'd be voting for a Tory either way."

Puja

Agreed, this is a crude calculation. Also, the LibDems are is a stronger position than 2017, so they stand to gain more from such an arrangement this time.

But we're talking about stepping down candidates who have no chance of winning. There's no time left to be squeamish about this. Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour this election.

Swindon needs to accept that at 15% in the polls she's not going to make a breakthrough for the LibDems without some kind of arrangement.

I don't think Corbyn's going to get much help from voters like Digby under any circumstances (but then he wasn't a LibDem voter last time).

[Banquo]

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

I think you're overestimating how much the voters would go for it too - the transferral rate would definitely not be one-for-one.

Swinson has been desperately avoiding any suggestion that she would form a coalition with Labour to avoid getting tarred with accusations that a vote for her is a vote for Corbyn and a lot of Labour pages and voters that I have seen are open in their contempt for the Lib Dems, calling them Yellow Tories, with Swindon being derided as a collaborator in austerity. I think it's entirely possible that removing the Lib Dem candidate would see people like Digby who couldn't stomach "Voting Corbyn" and removing the Labour candidate would see spoiled ballots as "It'd be voting for a Tory either way."

Puja

Agreed, this is a crude calculation. Also, the LibDems are is a stronger position than 2017, so they stand to gain more from such an arrangement this time.

But we're talking about stepping down candidates who have no chance of winning. There's no time left to be squeamish about this. Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour this election.

Swindon needs to accept that at 15% in the polls she's not going to make a breakthrough for the LibDems without some kind of arrangement.

I don't think Corbyn's going to get much help from voters like Digby under any circumstances (but then he wasn't a LibDem voter last time).

You think Labour have a chance of winning it?

[Which Tyler]

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-j ... in-2019-11

Boris Johnson's Conservative Party has received a surge in cash from nine Russian donors, who have been named in a suppressed investigation into Russia's attempts to undermine democracy in the UK.

The report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee identifies close links between major donors to the Conservative party and the Russian government, the Sunday Times reports.

The report was due for publication this week but was blocked by Johnson, due to reported fears that the information would damage his chances of winning the upcoming UK general election.

Article Continues...

and rather ironically...

The US Senate is concerned that the Pasty Cockwomble has been compromised, by a Russian agent

[Big D]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

The election in Scotland will be about more than Brexit. The Lib Dems will rightfully not enter an arrangement with the SNP, Labour are risking losing some votes in Scotland by the continued suggestion that an independence referendum (yay more of that utter BS that comes with referendums) will be part of any deal between the two.

[Sandydragon]

Labour and the LibDems really need to make a pact now.

I did a quick, super-simplistic analysis based on the 2017 results. If Labour and the Lib Dems made way for each other where appropriate, Labour could have won an extra 31 seats and the Lib Dems an extra 8. Which would have given Labour a small majority.

Of course, a lot of things have changed, but it would make a lot of sense to stand aside for each other in 50 or so seats (seats they have no chance of winning anyway).

I’d add all the remain parties into that, including PC, Greens and SNP.

But Labour won’t go for it. Even though it’s probably the best chance of Corbyn getting to number 10.

The election in Scotland will be about more than Brexit. The Lib Dems will rightfully not enter an arrangement with the SNP, Labour are risking losing some votes in Scotland by the continued suggestion that an independence referendum (yay more of that utter BS that comes with referendums) will be part of any deal between the two.

I completely understand that Scotland isndifferent, if for no other reason than the SNP holds so many seats. The reality for Labour is that if they want to be ingovernment, they almost certainly need support from the SNP. Acknowledging that, are they better placed to let the SNP run at the Conservatives who are left.

[Sandydragon]

And can the Tories hold onto their seats in Scotland without Ruth Davison, who always seemed to be particularly effective.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed, this is a crude calculation. Also, the LibDems are is a stronger position than 2017, so they stand to gain more from such an arrangement this time.

But we're talking about stepping down candidates who have no chance of winning. There's no time left to be squeamish about this. Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour this election.

Swindon needs to accept that at 15% in the polls she's not going to make a breakthrough for the LibDems without some kind of arrangement.

I don't think Corbyn's going to get much help from voters like Digby under any circumstances (but then he wasn't a LibDem voter last time).

You think Labour have a chance of winning it?

The opinion polls would have to move quite a bit, but yes it's possible. But failing that you can take my sentence to mean "Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour the chance of forming a minority government".... but that's not as snappy .

[Banquo]

Agreed, this is a crude calculation. Also, the LibDems are is a stronger position than 2017, so they stand to gain more from such an arrangement this time.

But we're talking about stepping down candidates who have no chance of winning. There's no time left to be squeamish about this. Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour this election.

Swindon needs to accept that at 15% in the polls she's not going to make a breakthrough for the LibDems without some kind of arrangement.

I don't think Corbyn's going to get much help from voters like Digby under any circumstances (but then he wasn't a LibDem voter last time).

You think Labour have a chance of winning it?

The opinion polls would have to move quite a bit, but yes it's possible. But failing that you can take my sentence to mean "Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour the chance of forming a minority government".... but that's not as snappy .

fair enough. I think the Tories are proving sufficiently tone deaf to give a fighting chance to Labour.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You think Labour have a chance of winning it?

The opinion polls would have to move quite a bit, but yes it's possible. But failing that you can take my sentence to mean "Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour the chance of forming a minority government".... but that's not as snappy .

fair enough. I think the Tories are proving sufficiently tone deaf to give a fighting chance to Labour.

True, although readers of the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc will be unaware of the Tories' blunders. They only know that Labour's plans will cost a million billion million pounds.

[Puja]

The opinion polls would have to move quite a bit, but yes it's possible. But failing that you can take my sentence to mean "Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour the chance of forming a minority government".... but that's not as snappy .

fair enough. I think the Tories are proving sufficiently tone deaf to give a fighting chance to Labour.

True, although readers of the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc will be unaware of the Tories' blunders. They only know that Labour's plans will cost a million billion million pounds.

And will require each and every taxpayer to hand over £2,400 extra each year*.

*This figure accomplished by taking everything that anyone even remotely connected with Labour has ever said would be interesting (including Guardian journalists!), assigning a very generous estimate of cost, deciding that abolishing tuition fees would be an immediate increase as opposed to lending students money to pay fees which apparently is magic money that appears from nowhere, assuming the economy and tax revenues will never grow again (because ipso facto, it doesn't when Conservatives aren't in power), rounding everything up, and then adding it all together and dividing by 31.2m taxpayers, because Labour are well known for applying flat tax rates.

When questioned about Conservative spending plans, apparently there's going to be a £30bn surplus across the next 5 years, so they're going to spend that.

£150 million a week for the NHS all over again.

Puja

[Banquo]

The opinion polls would have to move quite a bit, but yes it's possible. But failing that you can take my sentence to mean "Pride or stubbornness could lose Labour the chance of forming a minority government".... but that's not as snappy .

fair enough. I think the Tories are proving sufficiently tone deaf to give a fighting chance to Labour.

True, although readers of the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc will be unaware of the Tories' blunders. They only know that Labour's plans will cost a million billion million pounds.

Be interesting to see what the manifesto number is, and how they do propose to raise the capital and the revenue. They've laid out some chunky ideas, translation into detail will be the acid test.

labour and libdems have latched onto the floods; remember what did for May?..events dear boy (as someone said once)

[Banquo]

fair enough. I think the Tories are proving sufficiently tone deaf to give a fighting chance to Labour.

True, although readers of the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc will be unaware of the Tories' blunders. They only know that Labour's plans will cost a million billion million pounds.

And will require each and every taxpayer to hand over £2,400 extra each year*.

*This figure accomplished by taking everything that anyone even remotely connected with Labour has ever said would be interesting (including Guardian journalists!), assigning a very generous estimate of cost, deciding that abolishing tuition fees would be an immediate increase as opposed to lending students money to pay fees which apparently is magic money that appears from nowhere, assuming the economy and tax revenues will never grow again (because ipso facto, it doesn't when Conservatives aren't in power), rounding everything up, and then adding it all together and dividing by 31.2m taxpayers, because Labour are well known for applying flat tax rates.

When questioned about Conservative spending plans, apparently there's going to be a £30bn surplus across the next 5 years, so they're going to spend that.

£150 million a week for the NHS all over again.

Puja

So you are saying £48000 pa extra for the top 5% then

( I am kidding- thats the Daily Mail version)

[Stom]

True, although readers of the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc will be unaware of the Tories' blunders. They only know that Labour's plans will cost a million billion million pounds.

And will require each and every taxpayer to hand over £2,400 extra each year*.

*This figure accomplished by taking everything that anyone even remotely connected with Labour has ever said would be interesting (including Guardian journalists!), assigning a very generous estimate of cost, deciding that abolishing tuition fees would be an immediate increase as opposed to lending students money to pay fees which apparently is magic money that appears from nowhere, assuming the economy and tax revenues will never grow again (because ipso facto, it doesn't when Conservatives aren't in power), rounding everything up, and then adding it all together and dividing by 31.2m taxpayers, because Labour are well known for applying flat tax rates.

When questioned about Conservative spending plans, apparently there's going to be a £30bn surplus across the next 5 years, so they're going to spend that.

£150 million a week for the NHS all over again.

Puja

So you are saying £48000 pa extra for the top 5% then

( I am kidding- thats the Daily Mail version)

I remember a Labour policy a few years ago that my dad was convinced would lead to him paying 10k+a year extra tax. Even though the calculator showed he’d pay about £120 more a year...

The press is too powerful.