RugbyRebels

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.

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+

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote: 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

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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).

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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

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

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: 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?

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

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

Big D wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

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

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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 .

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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)

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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)

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
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.

Define "Press"...

morepork wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

Define "Press"...

The printed press and social media, then.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98996.html
So... Peerage for Garage in exchange for standing down in Tory held seats by any chance?

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98996.html
So... Peerage for Garage in exchange for standing down in Tory held seats by any chance?

I'm just waiting for Farage to withdraw candidates in the Labour marginals too.