KlaxonCow wrote:I've just been reading an article by "Best for Britain" in the Guardian.
These guys have attempted to work out, from their own recently-taken polling data, which candidate you should tactically vote for in order to best avoid Brexit:
Like Swinson I reckon Best for Britain are using local Euro elections as a gauge which I don't have confidence in. Euro elections were PR for a start. Single issue protest votes too. She is challenged in this clip hilariously exposes dishonesty :
KlaxonCow wrote:I've just been reading an article by "Best for Britain" in the Guardian.
These guys have attempted to work out, from their own recently-taken polling data, which candidate you should tactically vote for in order to best avoid Brexit: https://www.bestforbritain.org/
Best for Britain or Best for Lib Dems?
Not necessarily the latter. For my own constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, they are recommending a vote for Labour despite their poll suggesting a LibDem win if people do not vote tactically:
The reason for this would appear to be a prediction of a Labour win if people do vote tactically. How they managed to obtain responses for both tactical and non-tactical intentions is beyond me.
Emoticon and contraction free since... quite a while ago.
(o)(o) wrote:Best for Britain or Best for Lib Dems?
Yes, I've read such articles.
They recommend Labour in 370-ish seats and the Lib Dems in 180 seats. So their overall recommendation is, in fact, "vote Labour".
But there are constituencies which are "conservative strongholds" where "Labour" is considered a swear word, where the "Tory lite" of the Lib Dems can have more penetrating power and appeal.
And this is in fact true exactly because Swinson leans towards "the Dark Side", as you've put it. Because if you're a traditional Sith voter, then a slightly "Dark Side" candidate has more appeal to you than voting for Jedi Master Yoda.
The point being that their recommendations are based on the idea of "anything but a Brexiteer", and that we, unfortunately, operate under a "first past the post" system, which does sometimes result in odd tactical voting.
That's why it's called "tactical voting". It's not voting for what you want, but voting for what most fucks up the thing you don't want.
Hey, it's Labour and the Tories conspiring to keep "first past the post" - as its bias has historically benefited them - that causes the need for tactical voting in the first place. They now reap what they sow.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
I only mentioned "Best for Britain" solely to provide context for the statistics that, in the last election, the two main parties had 82.5% of the vote, but they're looking to struggle to get 66% this time around.
That is, it's not about their recommendations (which, by the way, for my constituency is Labour - because most of their recommendations are, in fact, Labour) that I mentioned them, but to source where the statistics are coming from for what I wanted to talk about, which is that all indications (not just "Best for Britain"'s survey, but various sources) point towards the two main parties suffering split votes and much greater losses than either has seen for a very long time.
And not just in polls, by actual elections, as the local elections and the EU elections went in that direction too. And - yes, yes - both local and EU elections have different contexts to them than a General Election, so you can't directly apply it straight across.
But, nonetheless, the overall gist here is that this General Election is simply NOT going to make the Parliamentary arithmetic any better. We're already in a hung Parliament with a minority government - and we're facing split votes, normal party loyalties being suspended over the issue of Brexit, minor parties making bold conclusive bids ("no deal" Brexit vs. "revoke Article 50 altogether") which could prove very tempting to folks who just want this seemingly never-ending shit over and done with (and, yes, will split the votes, clobbering the main parties), etc., etc.
What I'm getting at is that all indications suggest that this won't break the Parliamentary deadlock, but will rather entrench it and make it rather more complicated, when absolutely no party is anywhere near a majority and, thus, is forced to work with other parties (be that coalition or "confidence and supply" or whatever).
I understand that you'd like to see a Labour government. Fair enough. Everyone has a right to express their opinion and cast their vote.
But what I'm really getting at here - in a non-party aligned way - is that the numbers ain't good for anyone. Labour is going to get split by the Lib Dems / SNP / Plaid Cymru. The Tories are going to get split by "the Farage Party". There are also independents galore in this too, thanks to both "the Independent Group" walkouts and Boris tyrannically firing anyone who disagrees with him.
Plus, both Corbyn and Boris have been issuing warnings to their own candidates to "tow the line". Because even those who're running under the Tory and Labour banners are in a rebellious and independent mood when it comes to Brexit. Because, indeed, as much as you might insist that it's under the party's whip, folks will feel that a constitutional matter of such import has to be treated as a matter of conscience, even if that means defying the whip to do so. And though it might not be politically useful, they do very much have a point morally.
Basically, the bottom line is that the numbers suggest that this isn't going to solve anything, but will actually make shit much more complicated and worse, in terms of the Parliamentary arithmetic / dynamic. My original point was to invite discussion on that, not invoke a "party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party".
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
Regarding "Best for Britain": "Some candidates have been asked to sign our pledge before we can recommend them." It doesn't say what that pledge is, and Google hasn't turned up any more details. But it may cast some light on why they don't always appear to be recommending the candidate with the best chance of beating the Tories.
Interesting to note that NuKip is also a limited liability company: The Brexit Party Limited. Not unique, but that the Brexit Party doesn't operate as a membership organisation, is .
Generally, I'm more optimistic than you. If the coming probable standstill leads to Ref 2.0, I'm pretty sure 'remain' would win by a much larger margin than 'leave' did in 2016... 'not close' is my bet. Hopefully a margin large enough to salve the butt-hurt.
Ollie wrote:Regarding "Best for Britain": "Some candidates have been asked to sign our pledge before we can recommend them." It doesn't say what that pledge is, and Google hasn't turned up any more details. But it may cast some light on why they don't always appear to be recommending the candidate with the best chance of beating the Tories.
Ollie wrote:Regarding "Best for Britain": "Some candidates have been asked to sign our pledge before we can recommend them." It doesn't say what that pledge is, and Google hasn't turned up any more details. But it may cast some light on why they don't always appear to be recommending the candidate with the best chance of beating the Tories.
Yes, that is well dodgy if they didn't publish the pledge, it could be to vote with the Tories, to abolish parliament or the monarchy, give e.g. Tesco a complete monopoly on selling petrol, anything.
That link takes me somewhere completely unrelated to the Brexit party or news about them.
The second time takes me to a "you must allow our cookies to view our contents" page, That's a change though, I don't remember what it was the first time, not that though.
Beside which, Sirius is a local star.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
Jill Hughes … also believes … that her horse was reincarnated as another horse.
As opposed to a lasagna.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
Ollie wrote:Regarding "Best for Britain": "Some candidates have been asked to sign our pledge before we can recommend them." It doesn't say what that pledge is, and Google hasn't turned up any more details. But it may cast some light on why they don't always appear to be recommending the candidate with the best chance of beating the Tories.
A Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum once elected.
Why do we need a second referendum?
No one knew what a deal with the EU would look like back in 2016. A No Deal Brexit was dismissed completely by leading Leave campaigners, including by Boris Johnson.
Britain is divided. Boris Johnson’s Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have taken extreme positions on Brexit, both won’t do anything to heal this division.
Boris Johnson’s Conservatives are pushing the country towards No Deal. This would be a disaster for British jobs and our NHS. It would lead to a race-to-the-bottom in our rights and protections to get a one-sided trade deal with Donald Trump.
The Liberal Democrats have taken an undemocratic decision too and would cancel Brexit. But the Liberal Democrats can’t win an election. They make Boris Johnson’s disastrous No Deal even more likely.
Labour is the only party that can and will deliver a public vote. Labour is the only party that can unite Britain and move it forward with a plan for real change. Labour trusts the people to decide.
What will happen in a second referendum?
A second referendum won’t be a re-run of 2016. This time the choice will be between leaving with a sensible deal or remaining in the European Union.
A Labour government will negotiate a sensible deal within three months of being elected. It will be based on the things we have long advocated and discussed with the EU; trade unions and businesses, including a new customs union, a close single market relationship and guarantees of rights and protections.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote, alongside remain. Two clear options, both agreed with the EU – no false promises or bluster. Labour will then carry out whatever the people decide.
Labour’s position is simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
Nobody but Labour will get Brexit sorted and bring our country together because years of division over Brexit has become a barrier to delivering the real change this country needs.
To do that we need an economy that works for the many not just the few at the top. Labour has a plan to do just that.
Last edited by Rhythm on Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:18 am 0, edited 1 time in total.
Ollie wrote:Regarding "Best for Britain": "Some candidates have been asked to sign our pledge before we can recommend them." It doesn't say what that pledge is, and Google hasn't turned up any more details. But it may cast some light on why they don't always appear to be recommending the candidate with the best chance of beating the Tories.
KlaxonCow wrote:Anyway, you're missing my actual point.
I only mentioned "Best for Britain" solely to provide context for the statistics that, in the last election, the two main parties had 82.5% of the vote, but they're looking to struggle to get 66% this time around.
<trimmage>
My original point was to invite discussion on that, not invoke a "party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party".
Sorry if it came off like that. My position is actually, "anything but the Tories".
In refernce to your point, hung parliaments are a likelihood in the 21st Century, and it ANGERS me that the LDs pissed away the opportunity for PR, holding hands with the Cons for an AV that no fucker wanted. Dishonesty and betrayal is a key problem with the LibDems. Here are their recommendations for my consitituency. Firstly the crap they are shoving through doors :
Ridiculous! Completely specious justification. If anything it makes the case for the LibDems to form a progressive alliance, or step the fuck down like Labour did in 1997 so we had the wonderful Martin Bell for a term. Furthermore this former NHS chairman stands for the LDs who have no plans to cease privatisation of NHS services. Get fucked mate!
In a Tory stronghold like this it's even more important to make the correct vote tactically. I know the area and I believe LDs recommendation would eradicate any chance whatsoever of unseating the Tory. The best hope we would have, in seats like this, is a progressive alliance including Labour and the Greens, or Labour and LibDems agreeing to stand down in marginals. Jo "I cannot be trusted on anything" Swinson has already countenanced either idea, and is instead drooling over what limo she'll get and actively putting out misleading information that will help the Tories gain a majority.
That's a change though, I don't remember what it was the first time, not that though.
