General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

quokula

I don't see any workable Brexit policy Labour could have had other than their current one.

There are two inconvenient facts - 1) Brexit is a bad idea, 2) The UK voted for it to happen, and a very large part of the population still want it

They couldn't run on a pure revoke policy because firstly it would alienate way too many voters and hand the election to the Tories, but even if they squeaked a majority somehow, it would be on far less than 50% of the popular vote and far, far less than the 17 million who voted Brexit. It would be a gift to Farage, it would put fighting over Brexit at the top of the agenda for years to come, and would leave the next Tory Government in 5 or 10 years to go straight back to Brexit without needing to go back to the people as they can argue the original mandate is still valid.

They could run on a straight pro-Brexit policy, but they know it's not in the best interest of the country and it's hard to campaign on something you don't believe in. They did do that in 2017 because ultimately they believed respecting the democratic vote trumped all else, but it's much easier now with more time passed since the previous one to frame a confirmatory vote.

So running on a People's vote is the best choice - in an ideal world there's a remain majority, it has legitimacy because it was in the hands of the people not the politicians, and Labour can get on with governing.

For the second option, they could put Johnson's or May's deal on there. But given that they don't believe in the Tory red lines around freedom of movement, human rights etc, it surely makes sense negotiating a better starting point with the EU. It needs to be hammered home (and Labour have failed to do this) that they're not seeking to "renegotiate" by asking the EU to move. They're cutting out the Tory red lines to get to a position that's in everyone's mutual benefit.

It's true that all of the above is complicated and doesn't easily digest down to a catchy soundbite like the other parties. But I can't stand that argument, because Brexit is complicated by nature and deserves a well thought out plan rather than a catchy soundbite.

liamtech

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tbh you are reading an awful lot into my post - none of which I either said or implied.
I merely said that neither the LP or CP in their current format could be considered to be 'extreme' when you look at their respective histories.
I did not compare the leaders or the political situations - I simply pointed out that Labour used to be a socialist party and the Tories had a tendency to scaremonger and create/exploit division to win votes. That's it.

As for renegotiate a Brexit deal - I have no issue with that. May's deal was shot down, no one knows the specifics of Johnson's deal but if it mirrors May's there is no reason to believe that won't be shot down and yet another version will have to be negotiated anyway or face a no-deal crash out.
The Tories have so far failed to secure a deal that is acceptable to either hardcore leavers or remainers.
Hardly the end of the world if Labour have a go - without the Tory red-lines causing issues.

Then let the people actually decide in a referendum.
See, then it doesn't matter what Corbyn himself thinks - and I for one don't think the personal preferences of the PM should be the basis for making a decision in the first place - what matters is what the people decide.
Not what govt want, not what the PM wants.
A simple choice put to the people without govt endorsing one choice or the other. Treating the electorate like grown ups.
Now that's radical.

Ok well i was merely pointing out an opinion on the fact that the previous two reacted to crises in which the UK was plunged by events outside their control; and highlighting that Brexit is an invented crisis from within the UK itself, for which i specifically blame the Tories, but implicate Corbyn as having tacit responsibility through inaction - i still believe there isn't two-pence between our opinions, and im not attacking anyone - just giving my own tu-pence worth!

As to a Tory deal, lets for this topic, say that May Deal and BoJo deal don't differ substantially in what it will do to GB, leaving NI aside. Both Failed due to a lack of Majority support in the HOC. With BoJo having pruned the Tory party of all those pesky 'One Nation Conservatives' who had the audacity to place the country above the Party and Boris's career, he has now re-created his party as one that is ardently Pro Brexit - and if he gets a majority, its over. That will be Brexit done. And a now fully right wing Tory party will then effectively do what it likes for a minimum of 5 years

The Labour party should be the natural antithesis to this, while also seeking to bring back economic, social, and educational equality to Britain, after 10 years of Tory Rule. Unfortunately for Labour, they are being led by a man that although supporting the second goal of bringing wide spread equality, is quite obviously opposed to stopping Brexit, because in his heart, he feels Brexit can be a good thing.

You say why not let Labour have a go - i reply, there can be no good Brexit. To imply that it can be good is a dangerous stance to take, because it will normalize the concept of Brexit, and remove/reduce support for the real goal that should be sought - a second referendum in which the people reject Brexit altogether.

Corbyn will renegotiate Brexit along his lines, which granted would be less harsh than what has come before. All the while during this period he will implicitly sell Brexit as 'Good For Britain under a Labour Government' - he may have a point on that, but Britain will not be under a Labour Government permanently. What is to stop the UK under a subsequent Tory Government from unilaterally ripping up a Corbyn Brexit, in favor of what they want?

In terms of a renegotiation, how damaging will it be for half the labour party to urge labour supporters, to reject their Leaders Renegotiation Deal in a referendum? Respectfully these points do need to be addressed.

The Softest least damaging Brexit is the one that leaves the UK almost completely within the EU de facto - This is the Pointless Brexit, as by remaining, they can actually impact the way the EU conducts itself. what else is there that can be accomplished? Aside from this, or remaining, every other deal is Bad for Britain. And Corbyn implicitly endorsing the notion of a good brexit, during the 6 months it may take to get that far, and then tacitly endorsing it during a second ref (massively divisive for labour) - this is nonsense-IMHO

Joe_ Public

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tbh you are reading an awful lot into my post - none of which I either said or implied.
I merely said that neither the LP or CP in their current format could be considered to be 'extreme' when you look at their respective histories.
I did not compare the leaders or the political situations - I simply pointed out that Labour used to be a socialist party and the Tories had a tendency to scaremonger and create/exploit division to win votes. That's it.

As for renegotiate a Brexit deal - I have no issue with that. May's deal was shot down, no one knows the specifics of Johnson's deal but if it mirrors May's there is no reason to believe that won't be shot down and yet another version will have to be negotiated anyway or face a no-deal crash out.
The Tories have so far failed to secure a deal that is acceptable to either hardcore leavers or remainers.
Hardly the end of the world if Labour have a go - without the Tory red-lines causing issues.

Then let the people actually decide in a referendum.
See, then it doesn't matter what Corbyn himself thinks - and I for one don't think the personal preferences of the PM should be the basis for making a decision in the first place - what matters is what the people decide.
Not what govt want, not what the PM wants.
A simple choice put to the people without govt endorsing one choice or the other. Treating the electorate like grown ups.
Now that's radical.

I agree with you on everything here. 100%. But unfortunately we are in the political reality where the electorate is being wooed with easily digestible slogans and labours policy, while admirable and sensible for the reasons you lay out, is too prone to be twisted and used against them, by parties on both sides.

I've always wondered if they should just have fudged it. Like the lib dems. Just kept it simple. Be the party of a 2nd ref but keep purposely vague on the details. When questioned just keep hammering the second referendum line, over and over, till its as ingrained as "get brexit done" or "revoke". Worry about the complications later. Dont know if it would have worked but the current policy is losing votes so i think they have probably missed a trick here.

Leonard Hofstadter

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Johnson is such a waffler, it is quite scary the amount of folk who think he is what the UK needs

https://twitter.com/ThePoke/status/1195324524948004865

Wow, and people thought May was robotic!

devnull

Having been back in the UK this week the level of debate is really very poor.

I've encountered a labour politician who is talking about the one off cost of £20bn to fund rolling out high speed broadband to all and nationalising BT, he said that is all that would need to be spent in order to build the infrastructure needed to pay for this and then everyone can enjoy free broadband subsidised by the state.

He stated that there would be no more costs to this. I asked him how they were going to pay the staff in BT and open-reach and customer services, engineers and technicians to support such infrastructure and he stated with a straight face, that it would be the same that it was now and they would pay it out of their income.

The trouble is, that if nobody is paying for their broadband, then that's a massive amount of revenue for a company to lose and it is that revenue that is paying for staff costs, engineering, infrastructure support, among other things, if you take that out you need to replace it with huge ongoing public subsidies, which Labour are not being upfront about.

I must admit the current Labour Party is not fit for purpose. As someone who voted Labour everytime when I was registered to vote and living in the UK, I do not recognise it. Many of their policies are too extreme to the left for me with the Tory polices being too extreme to the right. I honestly could support neither the black of one or the white of the other because my views are always somewhere in the middle and there are no moderate views, just extremes of various natures.

I do not think that private companies are nothing but evil and taxed to extreme levels like Labour, but I also do not believe they should be taxed as little as the Conservatives believe and not be subject to firm but fair regulations. I do not believe in full scale nationalisation of almost everything as promised by the Labour Party but I also do not believe in full scale of privatisation of everything either, since some things like Schools should never have been turned to academies and the health service must never be for sale.

The trouble is for a centrist like me, both parties are toxically unelectable and many of my colleagues and friends in the UK are in the same boat. I would like to vote for Labour to stop the Tories getting in if I had a vote, as I hate the Tories, but Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and extreme policies would mean I'd grudgingly vote for the Lib Dems. That is what Jeremy Corbyn has done.

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

Having been back in the UK this week the level of debate is really very poor.

I've encountered a labour politician who is talking about the one off cost of £20bn to fund rolling out high speed broadband to all and nationalising BT, he said that is all that would need to be spent in order to build the infrastructure needed to pay for this and then everyone can enjoy free broadband subsidised by the state.

He stated that there would be no more costs to this. I asked him how they were going to pay the staff in BT and open-reach and customer services, engineers and technicians to support such infrastructure and he stated with a straight face, that it would be the same that it was now and they would pay it out of their income.

The trouble is, that if nobody is paying for their broadband, then that's a massive amount of revenue for a company to lose and it is that revenue that is paying for staff costs, engineering, infrastructure support, among other things, if you take that out you need to replace it with huge ongoing public subsidies, which Labour are not being upfront about.

I must admit the current Labour Party is not fit for purpose. As someone who voted Labour everytime when I was registered to vote and living in the UK, I do not recognise it. Many of their policies are too extreme to the left for me with the Tory polices being too extreme to the right. I honestly could support neither the black of one or the white of the other because my views are always somewhere in the middle and there are no moderate views, just extremes of various natures.

I do not think that private companies are nothing but evil and taxed to extreme levels like Labour, but I also do not believe they should be taxed as little as the Conservatives believe and not be subject to firm but fair regulations. I do not believe in full scale nationalisation of almost everything as promised by the Labour Party but I also do not believe in full scale of privatisation of everything either, since some things like Schools should never have been turned to academies and the health service must never be for sale.

The trouble is for a centrist like me, both parties are toxically unelectable and many of my colleagues and friends in the UK are in the same boat. I would like to vote for Labour to stop the Tories getting in if I had a vote, as I hate the Tories, but Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and extreme policies would mean I'd grudgingly vote for the Lib Dems. That is what Jeremy Corbyn has done.

It doesnt sound to me like that labour politican, whoever it might be, did a great job in explaining. BT will obviously keep paying the staff in BT as nothing is changing there. Once openreach is privatised, at whatever cost, the state then owns the assets and future revenues and so would be able to borrow accordingly.

Whether the broadband plan will work is open to debate, of course. But easy to see why the public are responding positively, given the terrible performance under the current operation.

And recent reports are glowing about the benefits of full fibre optic nationwide roll out so labour can feasibly argue it will pay for itself quite handsomely in the long term.

https://www.mobileeurope.co.uk/press-wire/full-fibre-broadband-could-boost-uk-economy-by-60-billion-says-openreach

devnull

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It doesnt sound to me like that labour politican, whoever it might be, did a great job in explaining. BT will obviously keep paying the staff in BT as nothing is changing there.

How can an internet provider afford to pay it's staff when their customers are not paying anything for their products? Where do they get this money from? The magic money tree? No, obviously it would require very high levels of taxpayer subsidies to replace the lost revenue. Somebody has to pay somewhere along the line, if it's not the end user then it is going to have to be the taxpayer and for Labour to suggest that it wouldn't, speaks volumes about why they are not trusted on the economy.

The problem with Labour, is they are economically illiterate in their current form, I'm not saying that the Conservatives are any better, but I used to expect more from a Labour party than what we're seeing currently, with headline promise after headline promise that sounds good in reality but not so straight forward as they make it out to be. Anyone can promise anything, but Labour keep harping back to these radical left wing ideas that a communist would be proud of.

When I hear about these kind of things from the Labour Leadership, it honestly makes me think what ridiculous, reckless idea will be next? Makes it very hard for me to take them seriously.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is a great thing to push high speed broadband for everyone but it is not the kind of thing that should be offered free to all households

Joe_ Public

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is a great thing to push high speed broadband for everyone but it is not the kind of thing that should be offered free to all households

Fair point. There are for and against arguments. Personally, i am swayed by the idea that broadband has become a national utility like gas or electricity and is well suited to a plan like this.

When i hear the usual arguments against it, such as that they will lose the private profiteers motive to be efficient and then consider how actually inefficiently it is being run right now, the gloss runs off them a little bit.

Outside of more housing, better rail links and roads, i cant think of better news if i was somebody living in a remote area of uk or outside the cities. The kind of people who will never be adequately catered for by private operators, no matter how many promises they deliver.

A Dub in Glasgo

More election leaflet shenanigans, this time from Labour. The absolute cheek of it

https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1195667076901412864

Tell me how

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

More election leaflet shenanigans, this time from Labour. The absolute cheek of it

These shenanigans, by all sides, are no greater or worse than what parties would have done years ago.
Difference is though, with social media, every person has their opportunity to flag something.

It really is going to change how canvassing, polling, campaigning is done in future. Hopefully it won't be total manipulation by Cambridge Analytica and the likes, but the rule book is being severely tested now and I can't imagine it won't result in changes.

L1011

Outright lies on leaflets have led to individual constituency results being thrown out and re-run before - its a stupid game to try play.

Admittedly, Labour held that seat at the re-run but with a less toxic candidate and with the Lib Dems already sliding since entering coalition.

Tell me how

L1011 wrote: »

Outright lies on leaflets have led to individual constituency results being thrown out and re-run before - its a stupid game to try play.

Admittedly, Labour held that seat at the re-run but with a less toxic candidate and with the Lib Dems already sliding since entering coalition.

Part of the irony about Brexit was because it was unbinding, the illegality of the Leave campaign did not require it to be re-ran. If it had been a more formal vote, a 2nd referendum would probably be being discussed right now.

Mr.Nice Guy

Good news for Johnson in latest YouGov poll:

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1195807426274050048

Big ask for Corbyn to claw this back.

Professor Moriarty

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Good news for Johnson in latest YouGov poll:

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1195807426274050048

Big ask for Corbyn to claw this back.

Corbyn is the reason the Tories have this lead.

liamtech

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Corbyn is the reason the Tories have this lead.

Yes imho

Dithering on Brexit (fence-sitting) being the main cause in my mind - but id be interested in what people think -

ancapailldorcha

Tough one to call. May blew a huge lead in 2017 but Johnson is a much better campaigner. It's also Jeremy Corbyn's main preserve as well. I'm not putting a lot of faith into polls to be honest. I hate doing this but that result just doesn't feel right to me. How on Earth does Johnson not shed all of the 11 seats in Scotland that Ruth Davidson won in 2017? The working classes of England's industrial or post-industrial cities hate the Tories as does the rest of the north. Wales and NI effectively don't matter. I just don't see how he wins new voters. I think anyone who voted Conservative in 2017 will just do the same this time around. The only difference is whether or not Labour can fully weaponise Brexit and the NHS. God knows they've the ammo at this stage.

And even if he wins? What then? I'd actually prefer him to win a stonking majority of 450+ if he's to win at all as I think that he'll be able to ditch the ERG and the DUP and purse a much softer Brexit at the behest of businesses. A narrow win which does seem probable just leaves us in the same sh*t sans some very talented MP's that we're going to lose.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Tough one to call. May blew a huge lead in 2017 but Johnson is a much better campaigner. It's also Jeremy Corbyn's main preserve as well. I'm not putting a lot of faith into polls to be honest. I hate doing this but that result just doesn't feel right to me. How on Earth does Johnson not shed all of the 11 seats in Scotland that Ruth Davidson won in 2017? The working classes of England's industrial or post-industrial cities hate the Tories as does the rest of the north. Wales and NI effectively don't matter. I just don't see how he wins new voters. I think anyone who voted Conservative in 2017 will just do the same this time around. The only difference is whether or not Labour can fully weaponise Brexit and the NHS. God knows they've the ammo at this stage.

And even if he wins? What then? I'd actually prefer him to win a stonking majority of 450+ if he's to win at all as I think that he'll be able to ditch the ERG and the DUP and purse a much softer Brexit at the behest of businesses. A narrow win which does seem probable just leaves us in the same sh*t sans some very talented MP's that we're going to lose.

Is he? Because the has made a complete horlicks of it so far. He may well once have been, butthe evidence of the last few months would point to him being far from a good campaigner.

I get it that people that already love him, find everything he does great, but a campaign is never about getting the already supporters vote, it is about taking the undecided.

That is not to say that he won't win. I expect the Tories to get a majority, but it wil be largely down to the massive dislike of Corbyn rather than great campaigning from Johnson.

Look at the example of the recent floods. It really is an open goal. Turn up early, appear concerned, appear to care more about the people than politics. And he, by pretty much any measure, failed. He gets caught off guard by any mildly difficult question, he appears to not be able to think on his feet and even seems surprised when asked what would be fairly obvious questions.

Joe_ Public

Tories 45% in this poll, 37% in another. Who to believe? All these firms have their own methods of weighting, only time will tell who's doing the best job of it.

Something about that poll quoted above looks off, though. It leaves only 8% for snp, dup, greens & various other small parties and independents. SNP got over 5% last time and will add another point or two. Greens will do 2 or even 3%. The numbers dont add up.

Danzy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Corbyn is the reason the Tories have this lead.

To a degree yes, I've little time for him.

He has however energized the activist base.

I think that he delivered a result that no one else would have In 2017.

Pushed too far now though.

Leroy42

Danzy wrote: »

To a degree yes, I've little time for him.

He has however energized the activist base.

I think that he delivered a result that no one else would have In 2017.

Pushed too far now though.

Really? He was up against a terrible campaigner in TM, a PM who had lied repeatedly over holding an election.

The Tories had already had 7 years of power, 7 years of massive and sustained austerity.

Whatever else about the Brexit ref, it clearly had a cry to change in it.

The Tories manifesto was a disaster. Badly thought out, badly communicated.

That is pretty much as open a goal as you are going to get in politics. JC lost that vote somehow. The fact that he lost he by less that many anticipated is just a signal of how poorly JC had done up until the Tories, mainly but not solely through TM, self destructed.

devnull

Danzy wrote: »

To a degree yes, I've little time for him.

He has however energized the activist base.

I think that he delivered a result that no one else would have In 2017.

Pushed too far now though.

I agree, he lost when a better leader, someone like David Miliband, would have won the election and we wouldn't have had a Tory minority government propped up by the DUP.

The simple fact is, despite all of the crisis that the UK has been in over the last number of years, Tories are massively ahead in the polls. The opposition has been absent without leave for a long time and that is down to Corbyn who has scared off the centrist voters and saw the Labour party decimated in Scotland.

The line being trotted out by Corbyn's cronies that they made massive gains and biggest gains for a long time would have been an achievement if it was against someone good, but it was against someone who ran an awful campaign, was a robot and an out of touch government.

Yes, Corbyn has a bunch of loyal left wing and far left followers who are delighted with his policies, but he will never get enough share of a vote to win an election with that kind of policy and the only people who will vote for him will be the full left who would vote Labour anyway no matter what. That's why many people consider Labour as a party of opposition.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is he? Because the has made a complete horlicks of it so far. He may well once have been, butthe evidence of the last few months would point to him being far from a good campaigner.

I get it that people that already love him, find everything he does great, but a campaign is never about getting the already supporters vote, it is about taking the undecided.

That is not to say that he won't win. I expect the Tories to get a majority, but it wil be largely down to the massive dislike of Corbyn rather than great campaigning from Johnson.

Look at the example of the recent floods. It really is an open goal. Turn up early, appear concerned, appear to care more about the people than politics. And he, by pretty much any measure, failed. He gets caught off guard by any mildly difficult question, he appears to not be able to think on his feet and even seems surprised when asked what would be fairly obvious questions.

I certainly do not love him. I hold him and his shadowy advisers partly responsible for Brexit.

I feel like Labour's determination to talk about anything but Brexit isn't helping. I know he has clarified regarding the second referendum but there's a lingering air of reluctance IMO.

Ultimately, I don't know what this is supposed to achieve. The Tories might win but it won't be much of a majority and we'll be back to the brink come July in that scenario.

I hope Corbyn can kick it up a notch. For the country if nothing else.

Tell me how

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Tough one to call. May blew a huge lead in 2017 but Johnson is a much better campaigner. It's also Jeremy Corbyn's main preserve as well. I'm not putting a lot of faith into polls to be honest. I hate doing this but that result just doesn't feel right to me. How on Earth does Johnson not shed all of the 11 seats in Scotland that Ruth Davidson won in 2017? The working classes of England's industrial or post-industrial cities hate the Tories as does the rest of the north. Wales and NI effectively don't matter. I just don't see how he wins new voters. I think anyone who voted Conservative in 2017 will just do the same this time around. The only difference is whether or not Labour can fully weaponise Brexit and the NHS. God knows they've the ammo at this stage.

And even if he wins? What then? I'd actually prefer him to win a stonking majority of 450+ if he's to win at all as I think that he'll be able to ditch the ERG and the DUP and purse a much softer Brexit at the behest of businesses. A narrow win which does seem probable just leaves us in the same sh*t sans some very talented MP's that we're going to lose.

Really don't see how Johnson could be identified as in any way a decent campaigner.

I think Tory success is down to the abject failure of the Labour party to project any sense of confidence that they can govern.
The likes of Femi and Alastair Campbell and Andrew Adonis and other strong advocates of a second referendum must have a sickening feeling the pit of their stomach watching the opportunity to campaign for to ultimately remain being taken from them before they even get to do so in anger.

PopePalpatine

Loathe as I am to go in to bat for Johnson, but he has a cult of personality, cultivated for over a decade, which May could barely dream of...aside from Laura K praising her as the "dancing queen", of course.

Professor Moriarty

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Loathe as I am to go in to bat for Johnson, but he has a cult of personality, cultivated for over a decade, which May could barely dream of...aside from Laura K praising her as the "dancing queen", of course.

Cultivated being the key word. If you peel back the layers of his persona, there's an unprincipled egotist at the core.

A Dub in Glasgo

Please do not dump images here.

Mr.Nice Guy

Was surprised listening to Prof. John Curtice a few days ago that he reckons the Tories are about 66% to win an overall majority. Also said the odds of a Labour majority were close to 0%. He's usually on the ball about election matters:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1195408784769912832

At this point I think Corbyn's looking for a bit of a miracle. Perhaps Johnson does awful in the public debates and has a meltdown, or when Trump makes that UK visit ten days before the election he ends up saying something that enrages the UK electorate, and thus Johnson looks bad by association.

What must be a concern for Labour and the Lib Dems is that the youth vote don't turn out because they sense a Tory majority is inevitable, and it in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

Really don't see how Johnson could be identified as in any way a decent campaigner.

I think Tory success is down to the abject failure of the Labour party to project any sense of confidence that they can govern.
The likes of Femi and Alastair Campbell and Andrew Adonis and other strong advocates of a second referendum must have a sickening feeling the pit of their stomach watching the opportunity to campaign for to ultimately remain being taken from them before they even get to do so in anger.

Sadly, he has more charisma than May, a low bar I admit.

He won't be fooling anyone who's not planning to vote Tory. I think his strength will be ensuring that the Tory vote turns out rather than winning anyone over.

liamtech

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Was surprised listening to Prof. John Curtice a few days ago that he reckons the Tories are about 66% to win an overall majority. Also said the odds of a Labour majority were close to 0%. He's usually on the ball about election matters:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1195408784769912832

At this point I think Corbyn's looking for a bit of a miracle. Perhaps Johnson does awful in the public debates and has a meltdown, or when Trump makes that UK visit ten days before the election he ends up saying something that enrages the UK electorate, and thus Johnson looks bad by association.

What must be a concern for Labour and the Lib Dems is that the youth vote don't turn out because they sense a Tory majority is inevitable, and it in effect becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This for me is the wild card - Johnson may be popular, and arguably a good debater - but Johnson has made disastrous comments in the past, by going off script which he SERIOUSLY likes to do - So this could definitely cost the Torys seats