UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 72 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

JazzG

Sounds like Johnson has yet to agree to an interview with Andrew Neil, after the last two no doubt he will try to duck it. Absolute disgrace if he does and a really cowardly tactic. The party will probably think they can ride out any stick for not doing the interview but may find it harder to see out the storm if he gets taken apart. As Labour have found out today!

But I do have to question Labour on this, they knew Corbyn would/could be taken apart. How the hell have they agreed to an interview without knowing about whether Johnson has?

jones wrote:
Because he has some seriously fucked up positions and has made them public loads of times? There's every reason to doubt the integrity of a guy who has backed every war of recent years, is a climate change denier and said publicly AIDS is a disease that kills only gays.

Nobody is voting on Andrew Neil and like him there are plenty of other guys with fucked up or different opinions. Doesn't mean you should question his journalist integrity. I think a few Corbyn supporters are a bit sensitive after the interview yesterday, his own fault really because he should have handled some of those questions easily.

Qwiss! wrote:
Lets see if he asks Boris to apologise for anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia, etc during his interview. Just asking questions in a rude, aggressive manner isn't a grilling.

Boris has apologised today for Islamophobia, I think after yesterday not surprised he did. He should be called out on his comments and his parties behaviour.

Mirth wrote:
Tbh I'd rather someone asked Boris about the NHS under a US trade deal. The whole anti-Semitism/Islamaphobia talk won't hurt him and he'd quite happily debate it till election day but this would.

There are so many questions you can trip him up on, he shouldn't make it easy by focusing on the same points as Corbyn because Johnson will be prepared for those questions.

Burnwinter

If Johnson were to fuck up as badly or Corbyn or worse in a high profile interview, there would still be no storm about it.

Mirth

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/27/mrp-poll-conservatives-on-course-for-68-seat-majority

YouGov's MRP poll, which is usually the most comprehensive poll going into election day, is forecasting a comfortable majority for the Tories. Obviously forecasts aren't inevitable and can be actioned on but if Labour don't change strategy now it'll be a bit like watching Arsenal play.

Qwiss

What strategy do you think they can take that would change things in a serious way? If this NHS stuff doesn't swing things I can't imagine what else would.

Mirth

Qwiss! wrote:
What strategy do you think they can take that would change things in a serious way? If this NHS stuff doesn't swing things I can't imagine what else would.

Well, who knows but I just clicked over to BBC news and someone's clearly had a word: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50580699

Qwiss

Mirth wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
What strategy do you think they can take that would change things in a serious way? If this NHS stuff doesn't swing things I can't imagine what else would.

Well, who knows but I just clicked over to BBC news and someone's clearly had a word: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50580699

"while the willingness of Leave voters to switch from Labour to the Conservatives had been underestimated"

This is what I've been saying all along, you can't just make yourself a remain party without alienating loads of parts of the country and therefore loads of seats. It was always going to be incredibly tough to keep both sides of the party happy in that regard.

Mirth

Qwiss! wrote:
Mirth wrote:
Well, who knows but I just clicked over to BBC news and someone's clearly had a word: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50580699

"while the willingness of Leave voters to switch from Labour to the Conservatives had been underestimated"

This is what I've been saying all along, you can't just make yourself a remain party without alienating loads of parts of the country and therefore loads of seats. It was always going to be incredibly tough to keep both sides of the party happy in that regard.

I agree that they're in a difficult position but Brexit has divided the nation and Labour have spent the best part of two years not having a position to nail down. This worked in the 2017 election since Labour and Corbyn were relatively unknown but since then the voters that flocked to him expected more. I think there's a school of thought that says when you're faced with two difficult choices, the worst thing you can do is not make a call. On top of that, they're now promising a second referendum with Corbyn suggesting he'll remain neutral - this warms you up to nobody and alienates everybody.

I accept that this comes with a massive dose of hindsight, because the Lib Dems have turned out to be massive frauds, but Labour should have come out as the party for a soft Brexit rather than a second referendum (a position they only crystallized in September) and actually make that known to the nation. In the grand scheme of things, 'soft Brexit' is an empty phrase that people could fill in the blanks around, this should have been a strong card to play because Boris Johnson actually has a deal on the table which obviously is not perfect - no deal could be. As much as the country voted to leave, there's very little appetite to re-align with the United States over the EU on a ground level - the scare stories that have had the most impact in the past few years have been around the sale of the NHS and chlorinated chicken and that's where the traction was. I feel like building on the narrative of weaker labour laws would have also done well but it's a bit late in the day for a narrative around this to build. Meanwhile the Tories have had their narrative in place since August.

Qwiss

I'm not sure being the "soft Brexit" party would have done them much good and while the Lib Dems have turned out to be incredibly useless I think they might have looked a lot stronger if all the other parties were full on pro-Brexit. Could have been more defections from Labour too if they'd ruled out a second referendum.

I do agree Corbyn isn't definitive enough about things though. He looked a lot more assured of what he thought and confident in his own ideas during the last election.

goon

The most ardent Leave voters were never going to be satisfied, even when Labour were trumpeting a soft Brexit. There's nothing to be done. A soft Brexit would have bled voters on the other side too.

I think their current approach is the best one out there, most remain campaigners acknowledge this. It gives them something to offer the more balanced leave voters too.

Mirth

goon wrote:
The most ardent Leave voters were never going to be satisfied, even when Labour were trumpeting a soft Brexit. There's nothing to be done.

Depends, the most argent Leave supporters only make up 25% of the population and largely over 60. That was never the target demographic.

goon

Mirth wrote:
goon wrote:
The most ardent Leave voters were never going to be satisfied, even when Labour were trumpeting a soft Brexit. There's nothing to be done.

Depends, the most argent Leave supporters only make up 25% of the population and largely over 60. That was never the target demographic.

That leaves only another 25% of the population to target vs the 50% who voted remain though, as polling suggests Labour have a lot more to lose from the remain camp.

I agree, Labour left it too long to make it's stance clear but I think the error was not committing to a second referendum earlier rather than take up a firmer commitment to Brexit. As I said above, I think despite the media narrative most people have started to recognise it's the best option being offered (with a little help from the Lib Dems), I've seen ardent remain campaigners suggest Corbyn's neutrality stance is sensible too.

JazzG

Qwiss! wrote:
What strategy do you think they can take that would change things in a serious way? If this NHS stuff doesn't swing things I can't imagine what else would.

Do a deal with the Lib Dems & Green and try to switch the marginal seats for this election.

Qwiss

Lib Dems don't want a deal.

JazzG

Qwiss! wrote:
Lib Dems don't want a deal.

They will soon enough because if those polls are right as they are going to stay irrelevant. Though the condition for their support might be no Corbyn as PM if they can form a minority government.

Coombs

They are relevant. They help keep Tories in power and lining their constituents' pockets.

goon

Good news for Labour is that over half of the last 10 polls conducted are showing single digit leads. If they can narrow that further to 5 percentage points or less, then they'll give themselves a chance on election day.

Mirth

Seems like Lib Dems have shit the bed - if they can't become a legitimate party now then they really are an irrelevance.

Would a hung parliament mean a second referendum?

goon

I don't think the Tories would ever agree to that, so it would depend on if Labour, Lib Dems and SNP could muster up enough seats to get something like that through.

I actually think a second election is more likely. Politicians in this country don't know how to work together cross party.

KingslandBarge

Thats the catch. Seems Labor has narrowed lead in the last two weeks by picking up Lib Dem voter share much more than ambivalent conservatives. Really need the public to hear from Johnson and his empty promises and vacuous statements.

I would prefer a stronger Lib Dem presence in parliament. Its healthier for politics in theory, and a stronger check on the two parties.

Mirth

goon wrote:
I actually think a second election is more likely. Politicians in this country don't know how to work together cross party.

Probably, I there's only been 1 hung parliament in the 100 years to 2010. Since then every election has been on a knife edge - I'm not surprised they don't know how to play together.

« Previous Page Next Page »