hotmail.com wrote: » The 317 seats they won in 2017 are pretty much a certainty now. They will win Labour seats based on the current polling. Lib Dems will be lucky to make small gains by the end of this. The first past the post system discriminates against them. Plus their leader isn't exactly a vote winner.
Rjd2 wrote: » Its not been great Negotiating though has it? Nigel ...Unless you promise us a hard brexit and form an alliance with us we will run MPS everywhere over to you... Boris...No on all that Nigel. Nigel. Ok fair enough we won't run MPS everywhere.
trellheim wrote: » Johnny Mercer MP was really strong on ensuring british soldiers would not be prosecuted for crimes committed - this proviso was supposed to be in the Queens Speech a few weeks back but was omitted ; now we see PR from the tories "oh we'll do that" ... why didnt they put in the QS then something weird is going on
Joe_ Public wrote: » Why should corbyn resign? Membership like him and are behind him. Endorsed him at conference recently. Farron resigned after a poor election performance, perhaps corbyn will too. Just to post again, lib dem position 2017: "Liberal Democrats believe the British people should have the final say. That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been negotiated, we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper. We continue to believe that there is no deal as good for the UK outside the EU as the one it already has as a member. Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say to the British people." So all fair and good, but what deal do they propose to put in that referendum? Lib dem pm, in theory, how do they organise that vote? Lets forget revoke because they wont get away with that. At least labour are dealing with that tricky question, others just fudge it because there are no easy answers.
LeinsterDub wrote: » The seats in Scotland aren't nor are the seats in London Not all of the Lib Dems gains will come from LABOUR. At a guess I'd start the Tories off on a base of 300
schmittel wrote: » With a hypothetical Lib Dem majority how do you figure that "they won't get away with that"? Surely if they campaign on a revoke platform, gain a majority for that platform, then they have no other option but to revoke? I genuinely don't get the confusion over this.
hotmail.com wrote: » They could lose 5 or 6 seats in Scotland but gain seats in Northern and CENTRAL England.
Leroy42 wrote: » How many ways and how many times can one person be shown to be totally wrong before people will start to take notice?
LeinsterDub wrote: » You do realise this the opposite of what you're first post suggests. I was just pointing that out. Gaining 6 seats isn't enough they need 20 + and even that would be a shakey majority
briany wrote: » Once Farage stands down his candidates in Conservative areas, that has to be it surely. Easy majority for the Cons?
VinLieger wrote: » There's no limit to how many times because for that to happen it would mean these people were also wrong and they have been fed and fattened on a diet of narcissistic right wing garbage which makes that admission for them nigh impossible, barring some absolute unforeseen and monumental catastrophe the likes of which dwarfs all the garbage we have seen thus far that ultimately lays the whole thing bare for what it is.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Thats fair enough. Youre entitled to that view and probably not alone. However, while corbyns historic eurosceptism is well documented, the fact he is supporting a PV and insisting on maintaining close alignment with the EU kind of makes a mockery of using words like "rampant" i think. Seems ott to me. Blaming corbyn for the leave vote in labour areas also seems unfair to me. Over 70% of labour voters voted remain, even in leave voting labour constituencies they voted majority remain. You dont have to give corbyn credit for that, but to suggest its his fault other voters didnt vote remain seems harsh i would say. Six labour mps went against him in the recent big hoc votes, in the circumstances i dont think that's too bad. They stayed mostly with him around the time they were passing the no deal legislation too. There is division but not as much as is being portrayed i think. Might not even lose as many of those leave seats as predicted, though bp standing down wont help.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Its the idea of revoking on receiving somewhere short of 40% of the national vote. Even if we're indulging the fantasy, even if they do try to implement it, i think it will prove hugely controversial. But maybe it could happen, i certainly would be wrong to discount it 100%.
schmittel wrote: » If Tories get a majority we could be looking at a hard brexit on somewhere 40% of the national vote. Would that be democratically suspect as well?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Of course. Simply follows, doesnt it? On balance those arguing for referendum before election were probably right. Just couldnt get to that position.
schmittel wrote: » Yes I'd agree it follows that if you think LDs revoking in that scenario is suspect, then clearly Tory's hard Brexiting would also be suspect. Then to my mind it simply follows that if Labour get a majority on somewhere shy of 40% then a second referendum would be suspect too. i.e if you seriously question one party, any party, implementing a policy on the back of a successful election campaign, then you must question all of them. And it that scenario it simply follows that one cannot really accept the outcome of any election, leading to the abandonment of the concept of loser's consent. And what then? Blame the Russians for the deadlock I suppose!
The referendum of 2016 decided the matter
trellheim wrote: » I must have missed the last 3 and half year of arguing so that referendum didnt even bother to define the question properly
but that's seemingly want they want.
Leroy42 wrote: » But even the media? I mean surely the next time Farage even pops into a studio people can simply say that he totally folder and got nothing from the Tories. Why would we think he has anything to add when clearly he has conceeded on a Brexit he said only a few weeks ago was totally unacceptable?
Joe_ Public wrote: » I think blaming the russians is good, if only to make a change of always blaming corbyn! But on a serious note, i think its fair to say we're at a point where we are talking about least worst options. On the basis i dont believe there is anything fundamentally undemocratic about going back to the people, that is the position i would support. I recognise some difficulties with it, but still it is better, and fairer, than the other two imo.
An Claidheamh wrote: » Farage the surrender monkey, he could have used the share of the vote as leverage to force the Cons to deliver Brexit. He just wants this all to continue to stay relevant.
schmittel wrote: » I have no disagreement on the point of a second referendum, going back to the people is a pragmatic and reasonable solution to the current problem. And I certainly don't have any problem with Labour delivering on it should they win the election. I just think that as an election strategy the Lib Dems makes more sense to me than Labour's. In the same way that posters here seem to get frustrated at the suggestion that Labour's strategy is not clear, I get frustrated at the suggestion that the LDs strategy is undemocratic!
quokula wrote: » As an election strategy for a small party that wants to get some cheap digs on Labour and win a bunch more seats it totally makes the most sense yes.
quokula wrote: » As an election strategy for one of the main two parties who actually want to win the election it would alienate a huge part of the population and would be completely unworkable.
Rjd2 wrote: » https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/1193886462695084032https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#:~:targetText=Despite%20this%20intense%20Euroscepticism%20in,majority%20in%20Hartlepool%20since%202001. Interesting. Definitely a winnable seat for a brexiter, but 2 running would **** their chances up. Bear in mind their is a few thousand people who will vote Tory no matter the candidate, will the tories step aside? Ignore Farage, Tories have no issues telling him to **** of but Tice is the man who calls the shots in the brexit party.
