UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[The Free North]

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1188814643634036737

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1188817278697197568

[Kingpoleon]

The SNP is seriously making a name for itself. I imagine if they keep this up, they’ll reach their 2015 results, right?

[Tintrlvr]

The SNP is seriously making a name for itself. I imagine if they keep this up, they’ll reach their 2015 results, right?

It seems pretty certain that the Tories will lose most of their 2017 gains in Scotland, and likewise the decline of the Tory vote and weakening of unionist tactical voting will sweep away Labour's gains, too. The Lib Dems should hold on to their 2017 gains and maybe make 1-3 more from the SNP, though. So on net the SNP will be slightly below 2015 but probably still above 50 seats. I would predict 51 seats for the SNP, to pull a number slightly from the air.

[DaWN]

The SNP is seriously making a name for itself. I imagine if they keep this up, they’ll reach their 2015 results, right?

It seems pretty certain that the Tories will lose most of their 2017 gains in Scotland, and likewise the decline of the Tory vote and weakening of unionist tactical voting will sweep away Labour's gains, too. The Lib Dems should hold on to their 2017 gains and maybe make 1-3 more from the SNP, though. So on net the SNP will be slightly below 2015 but probably still above 50 seats. I would predict 51 seats for the SNP, to pull a number slightly from the air.

They'll certainly take North East Fife which the SNP only held by 2 votes last time, but after that their targets dry up. The next one on the list is Ross, Skye and Lochaber, which is Ian Blackford's seat which (among other reasons) therefore makes it unlikely (although certainly something I'd like to happen). Other than that the majorities become too big and the territory not friendly enough unless the Lib Dems have a very, VERY big surge, which north of the border at least looks unlikely.

I agree with the rest of your analysis, although I think the Tories will probably hold on to 3-4 of their current seats. Unfortunate as the SNP remain as awful and despicable as ever, but when the two main British parties are as awful as they are, I can hardly blame the people of Scotland for voting for the alternative.

-

In other news, Labour appear to be staking a Remain position for the election, despite having spent the last two and a half years obsessively chasing a hard Brexit. Unfortunately, its a tactic that will almost certainly work and keep them most/all of their vulnerable remainy seats. Then, after the election, when they get right back to work enabling Brexit, everyone will scratch their heads wondering how on earth that could have happened. There's almost a poetry to it.

[jaichind]

Boris Johnson to Put Forward Bill 'Almost Identical' to Lib Dems And SNP (Dec 9th election) If Tonight's Election Vote (Dec 12th) Fails

[jaichind]

Looks like LAB will abstain on the Dec 12th election proposal due to massive LAB MP rebellion against having an election before Brexit is resolved .  But Johnson can outflank them by just coming in with the SNP/LDEM proposal which as long as SNPl/LDEM backs it means Johnson will have his election on Dec 9th.

[jaichind]

My understanding is that the SNP wants an election not just because it will gain seats but because former SNP leader Alex Salmond goes on trial early in the new year to face charges, including for attempted rape and sexual assault.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The parliamentary timetable for the secondary route around FTPA is extremely tight - it isn't impossible, not at all, but there will be a need to get everything in order or the clock starts to become a problem.

[CumbrianLefty]

So what is the sting in "almost identical", I wonder?

[jaichind]

So what is the sting in "almost identical", I wonder?

And it is open to amendment which means LAB/LDEM/SNP can add stuff like
1) Everyone gets a postal ballot
2) 16 and 17 year olds can vote
etc etc

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LibDems refusing to compromise on the date, apparently.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LibDems refusing to compromise on the date, apparently.

Whats the big deal between Holding an election Dec 9th vs holding it on Dec 10th

[jaichind]

LibDems refusing to compromise on the date, apparently.

My understanding is that the difference between Dec 9 and Dec 12 is that Dec 9 means Johnson will have no time to get a deal through before the election.   I think Johnson has mostly accepted that so that is why he is happy to go with Dec 9 if Dec 12 does not go through.   

[jaichind]

If it seems that the Johnson bill that is identical to the  SNP/LDEM plan of Dec 9 is passed then the optics becomes very bad for LAB.  The election will be about an election that LAB is too chicken to participate in but everyone else then wanted anyway.  In fact that might be be impetus for LAB to perhaps agreed to pass Johnson's plan to go into the election with the Brexit plan passed and not Brexit still not delivered.

[DaWN]

LibDems refusing to compromise on the date, apparently.

Whats the big deal between Holding an election Dec 9th vs holding it on Dec 10th

Boris' date is the 12th not the 9th. And that extra 3 days are days he could use to push his deal through before the election.

If it seems that the Johnson bill that is identical to the  SNP/LDEM plan of Dec 9 is passed then the optics becomes very bad for LAB.  The election will be about an election that LAB is too chicken to participate in but everyone else then wanted anyway.  In fact that might be be impetus for LAB to perhaps agreed to pass Johnson's plan to go into the election with the Brexit plan passed and not Brexit still not delivered.

In terms of electoral performance, I highly doubt this will make any difference.

[Helsinkian]

Looks like tomorrow is the day when Labour will be dragged kicking and screaming into an election.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why in God's name do the Lib Dems want an election that'll probably produce a comfortable Tory majority before the current, relatively inoffensive deal can be passed? Are they of the belief that they'll sweep to victory and BRING DOWN BREXIT instead?

[President Johnson]

Jesus Christ, this parliament is turning the UK into a laughingstock in front of the whole world. Set a date for new elections, the stalemate needs to end.

I don't understand the Liberal Democrats here, even though I'd vote for them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Government has refused to go with the 9th: introducing a bill tomorrow for the 12th. As noted above, this date is problematic for the opposition parties. They would presumably need very firm assurances as to no silly buggers, but then the problem of trust looms. SNP have also made increasingly loud noises about possible amendments - votes for 16-17 year-olds for instance - that, of course, the government would not accept.

In other words, once again it really isn't certain what is going to happen.

[DaWN]

Why in God's name do the Lib Dems want an election that'll probably produce a comfortable Tory majority before the current, relatively inoffensive deal can be passed? Are they of the belief that they'll sweep to victory and BRING DOWN BREXIT instead?

lmao

Anyway, there are two clear reasons I think:

1) Political party has decided there is an opportunity it will take to advance its own prospects. Might one suggest that this is not as shocking a development as some seem to think

2) It is not the Lib Dem's responsibility to bend their actions and policies around what Corbyn wants. Maybe if he wasn't such a total disaster the Tories wouldn't be heading for a majority. It's not in the Lib Dems' interests to refuse to take an electoral opportunity because it isn't an optimal time for a completely different party.

On a personal level, if Labour and their supporters have been trying to put people off the Lib Dems by their attacks over the past few days, then if I'm indicative of anything (and I'm probably not) it has had completely the opposite effect. "The Lib Dems have the audacity to not do exactly what Corbyn wants them to and do everything they do in Labour's interests not their own. How dare they?!?" The arrogance and entitlement of it sickens me and strengthens my resolve to vote against the pathetic shadow of the once great Labour party.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why in God's name do the Lib Dems want an election that'll probably produce a comfortable Tory majority before the current, relatively inoffensive deal can be passed? Are they of the belief that they'll sweep to victory and BRING DOWN BREXIT instead?

lmao

I said "relatively". Do you honestly think the election will produce a Parliament whose Brexit stance will be better? If so, you could have just said yes to my second question.

Anyway, there are two clear reasons I think:

1) Political party has decided there is an opportunity it will take to advance its own prospects. Might one suggest that this is not as shocking a development as some seem to think

2) It is not the Lib Dem's responsibility to bend their actions and policies around what Corbyn wants. Maybe if he wasn't such a total disaster the Tories wouldn't be heading for a majority. It's not in the Lib Dems' interests to refuse to take an electoral opportunity because it isn't an optimal time for a completely different party.

Okay, so you're admitting the Lib Dems are motivated by increasing their own electoral prospects rather than actually stopping or even mitigating Brexit. Gotcha. (And, no, I'm not under the impression that Labour is any better about this.)

[DaWN]

Anyway, there are two clear reasons I think:

1) Political party has decided there is an opportunity it will take to advance its own prospects. Might one suggest that this is not as shocking a development as some seem to think

2) It is not the Lib Dem's responsibility to bend their actions and policies around what Corbyn wants. Maybe if he wasn't such a total disaster the Tories wouldn't be heading for a majority. It's not in the Lib Dems' interests to refuse to take an electoral opportunity because it isn't an optimal time for a completely different party.

Okay, so you're admitting the Lib Dems are motivated by increasing their own electoral prospects rather than actually stopping or even mitigating Brexit. Gotcha. (And, no, I'm not under the impression that Labour is any better about this.)

Well, I could argue that the Lib Dems think they can win more MPs in an election and a Parliament with more Remain supporting MPs is a Parliament that can be used to stop or mitigate Brexit. And I would to an extent, but in general, no, I'm not under any illusions that this is anything except party political. And who cares? Every party, in every democratic country in the world, in every circumstance does the thing that will benefit them the most electorally. It's just a fact of life in politics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, there are two clear reasons I think:

1) Political party has decided there is an opportunity it will take to advance its own prospects. Might one suggest that this is not as shocking a development as some seem to think

2) It is not the Lib Dem's responsibility to bend their actions and policies around what Corbyn wants. Maybe if he wasn't such a total disaster the Tories wouldn't be heading for a majority. It's not in the Lib Dems' interests to refuse to take an electoral opportunity because it isn't an optimal time for a completely different party.

Okay, so you're admitting the Lib Dems are motivated by increasing their own electoral prospects rather than actually stopping or even mitigating Brexit. Gotcha. (And, no, I'm not under the impression that Labour is any better about this.)

Well, I could argue that the Lib Dems think they can win more MPs in an election and a Parliament with more Remain supporting MPs is a Parliament that can be used to stop or mitigate Brexit. And I would to an extent, but in general, no, I'm not under any illusions that this is anything except party political. And who cares? Every party, in every democratic country in the world, in every circumstance does the thing that will benefit them the most electorally. It's just a fact of life in politics.

That's fair.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everyone involved is acting based on what they presume (whether rightly or not) to be their best electoral interests. It is not particularly edifying, because it is very blatant, but the issue of the timing of an election is always like that.

What I will note, though, is that it really isn't certain quite what the outcome of an election would be. Not just for the usual reason that much can change during a campaign* but because there isn't as polling uniformity as looks at first glance, it just happens that the polling firms most likely to show a substantial Conservative lead are also the polling firms who have weekly contracts with media organisations (and one even publishes more than that). I will also note, and this is important, that back in 2010 the Conservatives had a seven point lead nationally on a vote of 37% and still did not win an overall majority. As the vote share of the winning party drops, the sort of lead it needs to win a majority increases.^2. This is before we start to distinguish between a bare majority and a comfortable majority...

<sub>1. And that while changes on the scale of what happened last time were unprecedented, this time any changes would not have to be so vast to make a big difference.
2. The 2005 election was a curious aberration to this rule for a very specific set of factors and is not relevant.</sub>

[Continential]

Will the Lib Dems get 100 seats or will they get a little bit above Clegg's 2010 seat count?