[Politics] The General Election Thread

[maltaseagull]

Anyone think Lib Dems have a chance in Mid Sussex?

Soames stepping down.

Brexit Party candidate will take extreme tory votes.

Lib Dems did well in EU elections and will take moderate remain tory votes. Mid Sussex voted to remain in 2016.

Lib Dems came relatively close in 2010.

It would require tactical voting, and remain Labour voters to vote Lib Dem. I don't think it's out of the question.

That is only of any use if you also win a referendum for an independent Mid Sussex.

Lib Dem want to ignore the referendum result and withdraw article 50. Hardly democratic is it?

 

[drew]

That is only of any use if you also win a referendum for an independent Mid Sussex.

Lib Dem want to ignore the referendum result and withdraw article 50. Hardly democratic is it?

But it will be democratic if they win as that is what people will have voted for!!!

 

[maltaseagull]

But it will be democratic if they win as that is what people will have voted for!!!

Not in 2016 though!

 

[kemptown kid]

I agree attack will be the action, if someone plays it smart and backs off the slagging game they may stand a chance for an outright win.

We have already seen Corbyn, Swinson, and Blackford trying to rip Boris's head off.

Which only pushes more neutrals on the Boris bus.

The one with lies on the side or the one heading for a ditch?

 

[The GIF dude]

That is only of any use if you also win a referendum for an independent Mid Sussex.

Lib Dem want to ignore the referendum result and withdraw article 50. Hardly democratic is it?

I don't agree with revoking Article 50. I think there should be a confirmatory vote, though.

Vote Leave literally broke the law, and now they're in government, do you find that democratic?

This is an important Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1185962901368168449

 

[The GIF dude]

I'm not a Lib Dem voter but why do you envisage any carnage? The LDs have been quite clear: a vote for them is a vote to Revoke Article 50, If by some miracle, they won they would have a clear mandate to cancel Brexit. The vast majority of people would accept that; if a handful of nutters objected, they're not going to get anywhere.

Agreed there would be no carnage. All the Russian bots on Twitter can't take to the streets. The pro-Brexit march numbers are always about 50. The pro Peoples Vote marches have seen over 1,000,000 on more than one occasion. As much as the right wing press would try to stir it up.

However you can win a general election with 30-35% of the vote - would that be a clear mandate for revoking Article 50?

 

[piersa]

Labour will walk this election.

You heard it here first.




That said, I'll now lose my nerve and hedge my bets by agreeing with Krishan: https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1189143147361832960

You absolute crazy *******.

 

[Gwylan]

Agreed there would be no carnage. All the Russian bots on Twitter can't take to the streets. The pro-Brexit march numbers are always about 50. The pro Peoples Vote marches have seen over 1,000,000 on more than one occasion. As much as the right wing press would try to stir it up.

However you can win a general election with 30-35% of the vote - would that be a clear mandate for revoking Article 50?

Well yes, plenty of governments have been elected with under 40% of the vote and taken that as a mandate. If you're going to say that governments have to get more than 50% of the vote, we're going to have political paralysis

 

[Eeyore]

Well yes, plenty of governments have been elected with under 40% of the vote and taken that as a mandate. If you're going to say that governments have to get more than 50% of the vote, we're going to have political paralysis

But in many countries in Europe we nearly always have coalitions. Italy aside, it often seems to work fine.

If a party wins a majority with 40% or less of the vote I find it hard to accept that they are there on the basis of a people's mandate. Or, more accurately, hard to accept their claim to such a mandate.

 

[neilbard]

 

[The GIF dude]

Well yes, plenty of governments have been elected with under 40% of the vote and taken that as a mandate. If you're going to say that governments have to get more than 50% of the vote, we're going to have political paralysis

No, my point is on the issue of Brexit, which began with a referendum which needed a majority vote to win.

A general election could result in Remain and Peoples Vote parties getting over 50% combined but unable to implement the policy.

Yet Johnson and the tories could win on 35% and use it as a mandate for his bad deal or no deal at all.

Which is why a confirmatory vote is needed to break the Brexit deadlock, not a general election. Now Brexit will dominate the whole thing and other important domestic policies aren't considered.

 

[clapham_gull]

Feck me you lot will try and rig every single vote going just because you don't like the result.
No wonder the Labour Party have zero credibility.

Oh the irony....

Good luck with wasting your vote locally with the Brexit Party.

( I've never voted Labour fw )

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Oh the irony....

Good luck with wasting your vote locally with the Brexit Party.

( I've never voted Labour fw )

Okay so you are not Tory, Labour or Brexit Party, who else is there

You spoil your paper, don't you?

 

[big nuts]

https://www.getvoting.org

Use this link to work out how you should vote, to vote out the Tories.

 

[clapham_gull]

Okay so you are not Tory, Labour or Brexit Party, who else is there

You spoil your paper, don't you?

Rather spoil my paper than soil my posts.

 

[GT49er]

This is an important Twitter thread:

....and that is an oxymoron!

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm no fan of his but would vote Labour if I didn't vote Green but what exactly fills you with horror? I ask this very non-combatively.

Obviously we had the Trident thing in the past - we'll pay for the nuclear deterrent, but make it absolutely clear that he'd never use it, making it a complete waste of money. I think he'd do the same think with Brexit - ask the EU for a deal, but make it absolutely clear that we'd accept whatever they offer, and under no circumstances leave without a deal. I wouldn't want to leave without a deal, just like I wouldn't want to ever use a nuclear deterrent, but the point is, you don't tell the other side that. It's possible he'd then put his deal to the public, and Brexit could be cancelled, but it's not guaranteed he would.

But it's what he'd do with the economy that's more concerning. If he had a decent majority, he'd give us large tax rises and blow money on public services like it was going out of fashion. Not that our public services don't need some investment after years of Tory misery, but I don't think Corbyn is the man to provide it diligently. More money needs to be spent on public services, and that money needs to reach the front line. Under Corbyn I'd expect public services to improve, but I'd also expect there to be more waste and we wouldn't be able to fund the increased spending, leading to a crash within 10 years.

I have no faith in him as someone who could run the finances of a small business, let along a country. He looks up to communists who have destroyed their own countries.

I also don't want Boris leading us with a decent Majority. He's Trump light. I can't stand anything about him. Ideally I'd like a coalition lead by Labour, but despite having the worst government most of us can remember, Corbyn is so bad he probably can't even give us that.

 

[Triggaaar]

2017 Labour polled 12.9m that exceeds every other election result for Labour accept for 1997 when Blair got 600k more votes than Corbyn and Wilson in '66 who got 200k more.

Hopefully you've already checked the figures for the Tories etc, and can explain why he lost, while Blair won in 2001 and 2005?

It's hard to make a convincing argument that a leader that got more votes in a GE than in every other election bar 2, is somehow the result of 'stupid' members. A leader that has also grown that membership substantially. Of course there are other metrics to take, whether vote share, seats won etc. but the fact remains in 2017 more people voted for Corbyn than had Cameron in the 2 previous elections.

The only facts that matter are whether he won the last election, and whether he'll win the next. Most people seem to agree that the Tories are doing a really bad job, so a decent leader for Labour should easily be able to win this coming election, but the odds for most seats are Tory 1/6, Labour 13/2.

It's hard to make a convincing argument that the members have given Labour the best chance of winning an election, when it appears that they won't despite how bad the Tories have been.

 

[Triggaaar]

Fills you with horror. HORROR!

Please can you give some examples where have you listened to what Corbyn has said and not been misled by a smear campaign in the papers? There must be some striking examples for it to 'fill you with horror'.

I gave a couple of examples above.

 

[drew]

Not in 2016 though!

Last time I checked, it is 2019!!

Also, they've stuck with their beliefs. Would you expect the Tories to fully support re-nationalisation of industry just because they lose to Labour?