UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

How do you intend to vote in the 2019 General Election if eligible?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 30 4.3%
  • Conservatives

    Votes: 73 10.6%
  • DUP

    Votes: 5 0.7%
  • Green

    Votes: 23 3.3%
  • Labour

    Votes: 355 51.4%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 58 8.4%
  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 3 0.4%
  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 9 1.3%
  • SNP

    Votes: 19 2.8%
  • UKIP

    Votes: 6 0.9%
  • Independent

    Votes: 1 0.1%
  • Other (BNP, Change UK, UUP and anyone else that I have forgotten)

    Votes: 10 1.4%
  • Not voting

    Votes: 57 8.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 41 5.9%

  • Total voters
    690
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm a bit sceptical about tactical voting. If you look at Deltapoll's constituency level polls, a lot of London seats are like this one in the Cities of Westminster & London. Labour finished second there in 2017 with the Lib Dems a distant third, so you might think that you should go Labour for a tactical vote. But polling by Deltapoll is saying that the Lib Dems have leaped into second place, so perhaps if you want to vote tactically you should go Lib Dem.

But of course, both Labour and the Lib Dems want the seat, so both are arguing that they're the party you should tactically vote for. And to make matters worse, I tried this seat in 4 tactical voting sites and 2 said vote Lib Dems, 2 said vote Labour.

Leaving it down to voters to do tactical voting isnt really a great option in my view because they're guessing the outcome and then voting in line (or against) it. If the parties came together and pulled candidates out, that would obviously work, but in the absence of that I wouldn't be surprised if we saw relatively few results where it was clearly down to tactical voting.
Yep and there are issues about up to date or accurate local polls are. Plus you'd need to factor in the referendum vote.
I also wonder how much interest these tactical voting websites are getting tbh.
 
I am not sure how well Philips would do as a leader. All well and good doing what she does on the back benches (and I think she does a good job), but not sure how effective she would be as a leader in all honesty.
Possibly... Doubt we will get to find out though
Probably the next labour leadership will reduce to one momentum candidate Vs starmer.
I'd guess wrong daily and she will win then about 150 plp members will fek off and start a new party
 
How long realistically would a Labour-led minority government be likely to survive?
 
I hope I'm wrong, I'd be very happy if I was. This is just the impression I have of the current situation.
The part that I'm calling nonsense is the youth vote. That is one of the things Corbyn has done quite well, getting younger people involved.
 
Reasonable, except if the Tories had been in power 2000-2006 they wouldn't have saved any surplus they would have spunked it on tax cuts for the already well-off, with much of that money spent abroad or on foreign products.

If I were a betting man I'd say there would have been a surplus in 06-07 given the growth over that period. However it'd probably "only" be £15 - 20b, along with greater tax cuts but lower (than Brown) infrastructure/public sector spending.

The only thing I would say is taxes can be increased at the brush of a pen during a recession, whereas cutting public services as we've seen takes years and years if you want to do it in a somewhat manageable way (whatever you think of Tory "austerity" they haven't enacted deep cuts in the same way as for example were forced onto Greece by the EU).
 
Neither are fair assessments. The 2010 crash was a global crises that wouldn't have been averted by any government, so anyone disparaging Labour for the crash itself is being disingenuous. It is arguable however that with economically "normal" spending between 2000 and 2006 the country could have had a large budget surplus of over £50b per annum by the end of that period (instead of a £45b per annum deficit) along with very little net debt (c. £100b). The Labour government between 2000 and 2006 increased spending on public services at an average of 6.4% per year, which was around double GDP growth at that time.

The question is how the crash would have affected the economy if at the time of it occurring we had a minimum £50b budget surplus and total £100b net debt, rather than a £45b deficit and £550b debt. My view is the effect would be much reduced irrespective of your political leanings in that situation. If you're left leaning (Keynesian) then the fiscal headroom available in that scenario to enact large scale infrastructure spending (e.g. £100b per annum for 4 years) to stimulate the economy, whilst still maintaining some semblance of fiscal responsibility would have reduced the impact hugely.

If you're right leaning economically then the interest bill that has been paid over the last decade (c. £470b) could have been reduced to less than £200b (assuming £300b extra debt 2008 - 2015 ending the first term with no deficit and a total debt of around £400b). This large saving could have been invested in public services, in infrastructure spending and/or in tax cuts that would encourage further investment and growth (I would imagine a combination of all three).

Again it generally depends on your political leanings, but it's definitely nonsense to suggest the crash was caused by anyone (unless you're saying it was caused by US regulators / credit agencies). It's also worth noting that it's a bit of a double standard to criticise austerity and to also criticise the doubling of debt. You can criticise the total debt and be a proponent of deeper austerity or you can be a proponent of less austerity and more debt. However it's cynical for someone to criticise both.

Very good post, particularly the bolded bit.
 
The part that I'm calling nonsense is the youth vote. That is one of the things Corbyn has done quite well, getting younger people involved.
We’ll see how well that transfers over to the ballot box. Young people tend to have a notorious low turnout in elections.

Singing Jeremy Corbyn’s name in Glastonbury means feck all if the bulk of them end up staying home on election day when 80% of their elderly compatriots never miss a vote.
 
How long realistically would a Labour-led minority government be likely to survive?
I'm not sure Corbyn could form one... But even if they put Becket in charge of a gnu then can you really see the libs backing a labour budget... And can you see labour proposing one with all their manifesto promices missing
What concession would the SNP want... Would plaid want similar... I can't see the libs backing Scottish independence
Dup won't support them either
I couldn't see it lasting through a budget

More likley if the conservatives offered a 2nd referendum the libs would go confidence and supply there

No need for a renegotiating period and if it was be out of power of give way on a second referendum I think the conservatives would reluctantly go for the referendum (Boris deal Vs remain)

Not only do they get their deal on the ballot this way but they also control who gets to vote (EU citizens and dropping the age to 16)

In short I don't think a labour minority will be workable and certainly not the 9 months needed for a second referendum
 
How long realistically would a Labour-led minority government be likely to survive?

I was thinking about this. His policy is deal in 3 months and ref in 6. Given the speaker's rulings, I'm guessing he'd have to get these through parliament first. I'm guessing if he gets a customs union type deal, he'll get some remainder Tory support, but with some snp+LDs loses, and those numbers may not work out. I also can't see him being able to live with anything other than an increase in social spending and that probably would be a budget that doesn't get many libs or a single Tory.
 

Wow... Your echo chamber is strong even Novara media are not confident about winning
Though it seems the important thing is ignoring the fact people don't want to talk to you and ripping Tony Blair to shreds.


No one is ripping Tony Blair to shreds on the doorstep. That's absolute bollocks. I'm not in an echo chamber at all, my cosntituency and all around are as blue as it gets and I see what people are saying. I also don't have any social media accounts apart from Facebook and on there I am mostly following opposite groups to see what's being said and discussed. Long life Conservative voters do not like Johnson, there have been loads in MK saying they weren't going out to vote. His success with the party was very much due to entryism. 125,000 members is what the Conservatives had in 2018 and it became 191,000 in 2019. The majority were Leave.eu supporters who signed up in droves after their push .

The Consevatives have moved too far right and have alienated traditional voters especially in the South East where I'd probably say a majority now are opposed to Brexit. All they can squeeze from the 2017 election will be some of the Kippers vote and they have to turn a lot of Labour heartlands from red to blue to get a majority. They will lose at least 10 seats in Scotland and at least another 10 in London & South East and another 3-4 in Wales. For a majority they need another 30 elsewhere. Do you see any of that happening when their only policy to appeal to those heartlands is Brexit and Farage's Brexit party is running alongside? Brace yourself Thrusday 10pm will be another 2017 moment :drool:
 
How long realistically would a Labour-led minority government be likely to survive?

Long enough to deliver a referendum will be enough to swing the next election because Brexit will no longer be a factor. Conservatives have become a one issue party they will get decimated as they have no answer to anything else. If they manage to expand voting rights to 16-17 year olds and EU nationals Conservatives will never get close to winning another election.

Another Corbyn defeat?

Yes a hung parliament with no winner to bulldoze through their policies.
 
Given how the momentum and Corbyn crowd talk about Blair and the Blair governments I don't see them doing anything other than fighting
It's been obvious for years that they have been trying their best to get control of the nec and other internal party structures... They have been digging the trenches for a long fight
Either it will be another Kinnock type transition (i.e. a long fight.. and who knows perhaps even Stephen Kinnock will be involved for added irony)
Or a big chunk of the plp will simply quit and form the official opposition (new new labour or something like that) ... Tom watson was influential in stopping apparently a lot of MPs doing that before and if momentum get a mouthpiece in charge and try to lurch even further left (no doubt blaming the Jews and Blair for corbyns demise) I can see a lot of MPs jumping ship

Why would Momentum, which is run by a Jewish man, want to blame the Jews for Corbyn's demise?
 
Yes a hung parliament with no winner to bulldoze through their policies.


I hope so... Swinson backing the conservatives and having a second referendum

Labour ditching Corbyn and getting away from the momentum agenda

6 months later we have the referendum and stay in the EU and a few weeks after that a labour victory with Jess Phillips or Kier starmer

Would be great

Don't see it happening though

Suspect conservatives get a majority of around 20-50

Low enough that the erg and dup votes come into play pushing for the hardest of brexits
 
Untill the SNP get their freeeeeedom... Then it's a conservative government for about 50 years

If Brexit doesn't materialise they won't. They won't be able to join the EU if UK is still part of it.

There's no support for independence anyway especially since their plan to become sheikhs on oil reserves massively imploded since the last referendum.
 
If Brexit doesn't materialise they won't. They won't be able to join the EU if UK is still part of it.

There's no support for independence anyway especially since their plan to become sheikhs on oil reserves massively imploded since the last referendum.
Why would England/Wales/Northern Ireland block Scotland joining the EU?
 
Untill the SNP get their freeeeeedom... Then it's a conservative government for about 50 years

I can't see beyond this to be honest.

The SNP will get their second ref and the idea of rejoining the EU will be enough to get them their independence.

Leaves the rest of us fecked unfortunately
 
I usually stay up on election night. Not this time. Going to sleep like a baby.
 
The media have a part to play but the UK as a whole simply will not support hard left policies. There is decades worth of evidence for this, way before the media became as powerful and influencial as they are now.

Historical evidence doesn't mean there will not be a shift in the future. Young people are crying out for social policies because they're forever in debt, can't get a proper job and have nearly zero chance of getting on the housing ladder. This is what has brough political engagement on massive levels together with the issue of Brexit and climate.
 
I usually stay up on election night. Not this time. Going to sleep like a baby.

Were you not going to sleep the last election? Everyone was resigned to a Tory majority then too but once that exit poll came out it was just :drool:
 
Neither are fair assessments. The 2010 crash was a global crises that wouldn't have been averted by any government, so anyone disparaging Labour for the crash itself is being disingenuous. It is arguable however that with economically "normal" spending between 2000 and 2006 the country could have had a large budget surplus of over £50b per annum by the end of that period (instead of a £45b per annum deficit) along with very little net debt (c. £100b). The Labour government between 2000 and 2006 increased spending on public services at an average of 6.4% per year, which was around double GDP growth at that time.

The question is how the crash would have affected the economy if at the time of it occurring we had a minimum £50b budget surplus and total £100b net debt, rather than a £45b deficit and £550b debt. My view is the effect would be much reduced irrespective of your political leanings in that situation. If you're left leaning (Keynesian) then the fiscal headroom available in that scenario to enact large scale infrastructure spending (e.g. £100b per annum for 4 years) to stimulate the economy, whilst still maintaining some semblance of fiscal responsibility would have reduced the impact hugely.

If you're right leaning economically then the interest bill that has been paid over the last decade (c. £470b) could have been reduced to less than £200b (assuming £300b extra debt 2008 - 2015 ending the first term with no deficit and a total debt of around £400b). This large saving could have been invested in public services, in infrastructure spending and/or in tax cuts that would encourage further investment and growth (I would imagine a combination of all three).

Again it generally depends on your political leanings, but it's definitely nonsense to suggest the crash was caused by anyone (unless you're saying it was caused by US regulators / credit agencies). It's also worth noting that it's a bit of a double standard to criticise austerity and to also criticise the doubling of debt. You can criticise the total debt and be a proponent of deeper austerity or you can be a proponent of less austerity and more debt. However it's cynical for someone to criticise both.
I don't think anyone could have foreseen the extent of the crash but deregulation to the level it was allowed, was a stupid idea because politicians didn't fully understand the global financial market (as Gordon Brown admitted years later). At the very least, it had the POTENTIAL to cause serious economic issues but it seems various politicians were less focussed on understanding international banking and more focussed on rushing economic growth.

Letting bankers (especially ones who control vast sums of 'money' with minimal controls in place) do what they want was stupid especially given the nature of the bonus structures at the time. At least now, we've got much more controlled bonus structures... much smaller, deferred, clawbacks, etc.
 
Why would England/Wales/Northern Ireland block Scotland joining the EU?

If they leave the UK they'd have to leave the EU and apply to join. The same arguments as 2014 would be surely used if nothing changes on the Brexit front.
 
Historical evidence doesn't mean there will not be a shift in the future. Young people are crying out for social policies because they're forever in debt, can't get a proper job and have nearly zero chance of getting on the housing ladder. This is what has brough political engagement on massive levels together with the issue of Brexit and climate.

True but I can't see it happening. Do hope I'm wrong though, I'm fairly battered from decades of watching politics that I'm probably fairly jaded at this point.
 
Literally every day Boris does/says something that's so insidious that if it were Corbyn it would be weeks worth of news :lol:
 
I am not sure how well Philips would do as a leader. All well and good doing what she does on the back benches (and I think she does a good job), but not sure how effective she would be as a leader in all honesty.
It's all upside after Corbyn.
 
Literally every day Boris does/says something that's so insidious that if it were Corbyn it would be weeks worth of news :lol:
That's the problem for Labour in a nutshell. People don't like Johnson but they really fecking can't stand Corbyn. So Johnson and the Tories get a pass. That's what being unelectable means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.