Well sadly, as long have we have first past the post, that’s the situation we’re stuck with. I won’t vote for LibDems if it means gifting the Tories a majority. It clearly isn’t ideal or noble, but it is practical.
My guess at this point is a minority Labour government as well. The Conservatives have led the government since 2010, and haven’t led it very well since early 2016. Periodic switching of governments is part of the UK political cycle, and I think the current cycle has run its course. However, I think the election will depend greatly on the positions the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats take, and how the Conservatives respond.
The Brexit Party is obviously going to be trumpeting for a no-deal Brexit. The question is whether they run as a single issue party, or try to become the party of the hard right. They may think their best chance is to adopt a nationalist, populist platform which would take over a chunk of voters inclined to vote Conservative. The question for the Conservatives then, is do they concede that ground and persist as the “One Nation” party they’re currently claiming to be, or do they come out as hard right as well, likely losing centrist voters.
That then brings up the Liberal Democrats, who are the steadfast Remain party. They won’t campaign as single issue, so will they adopt a centrist platform or a left wing one? If the Brexit Party and the Conservatives are fighting it out for the right, and the Liberal Democrats take a chunk out of the centre, then Labour has their historic support, plus the left. I don’t think that will get them a majority, but it could give them the leading number of seats, or at least enough seats to form a government with the support of other parties. However, since their party conference, the Lib Dems have been coming across as more activist. They may try to go after Labour votes, especially in metropolitan areas, on issues such as the environment, protecting workers rights, and increased government spending. The Conservatives best chance is if they can get their traditional votes, plus the centre while Labour and the Lib Dems split the left.
The other factor is the Scottish National Party, who are likely to do very well. I don’t think there’s going to be a single Scottish Conservative MP after the election, and I think Labour will also lose a few Scottish seats. The SNP will probably support the Labour Party in government, and unless the Conservatives get very lucky by winning lots of four-way splits in England, that’s likely to make the difference.
What’s laughable is the comparison of negotiations between a government which has cynically engineered this election for their own advantage to the lengthy discussions between the UK and EU.
And yet it still took Corbyn months…
Negotiating with politicians who wanted to engineer an election to their own advantage?
I don’t think this makes any sense. Corbyn wasn’t attempting to “negotiate” a general election. He was in a position to block a general election that Johnson wanted, and he chose to block it (until now) because he reckoned that doing so would be to his advantage. There may be reasons for doubting Corbyn’s negotiating skills, but this is certainly not one of them.
As for whether he can negotiate a new deal with the EU, he can certainly try. True, the EU have said they will not reopen the deal they agreed with Johnson but, then, they said exactly the same about the deal they negotiated with May. I think there’s two points to bear in mind here:
-
“We won’t reopen this deal” is (among other things) a stance designed to strengthen the hand of the government that negotiated it in their attempts to get Parliament to approve it. To that extent, the EU has no motivate to adopt, or stick to, that stance when dealing with a new government that didn’t negotiate the deal and isn’t trying to get parliament to approve it. (Which is why the EU didn’t maintain the stance when Johnson wanted to revise May’s deal.)
-
The EU wants a deal, very much, but faced with a new government that doesn’t want to ratify Johnson’s deal and instead wants to negotiate a new deal that will be more attractive from the EU’s point of view, the EU would be mad to force a no-deal Brexit rather than grant an extension to explore a new and better deal. Doubly so if the new government has done the blindingly obvious thing, Teresa, and secured parliamentary endorsement for its negotiating position and its targetted outcomes before it negotiates with the EU. And if one side in this sorry affair has been characterised by madness, it’s not the EU.
So, yeah. If (that’s very big “if”) the election returns a Corbyn-led (or indeed anyone-led) government that secures parliamentary backing for a negotiating position that seeks a closer relationship with the EU, the EU will extend to allow negotiations for a new deal.
And, in the worst case, even if they don’t, the new government still doesn’t have to go for a no-deal Brexit. They can ask parliament to approve Johnson’s deal, or to submit Johnson’s deal to a referendum, with “remain” as the alternative. (The EU would unquestionably allow an extension for that referendum.)
Not Bristol West by any chance (seem to remember you’re from round these parts)? If so, I’m in a very similar position.
Trump doing Corbyn a big favour with an interview on a UK radio station saying that Corbyn would be a disaster for a Britain.
Of course it’s a disgrace that he’s trying to interfere with another country’s election, although Obama tried to weigh in on the EU referendum.
I predict another hung parliament. I could see the Tories losing most if not all their seats outside England, which I’m sure would do wonders for British national unity.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Obama also interfered in the recent Canadian election.
Less of an issue, perhaps, now that he’s just a (particularly well-known) private citizen, rather than a US public official. The Straight Dope is full of people expressing often strong views on elections in countries of which they are not citizens.
I wonder if there’s a percentage of people who voted leave years ago and are looking around and thinking “ah the hell with it” and would vote remain just to go back to some kind of normal …
Opinion polls have suggested for quite a time that there is, but probably not enough for the kind of thumping majority that would put the issue to bed. And somewhere I saw some that were all over the place, depending on exactly how the question was worded
This was true at one time, but I think for over a year now pretty much all the opinion polls, no matter how the question is worded, show a signficant (as in, statistically significant) majority in favour of remaining. Note that the 2016 vote was very close (52:48), so it doesn’t take a huge shift to convert a Leave majority into a Remain majority.
We can’t assume that this shift is because people want a quiet life, and think Brexit is proving just too much trouble. That may be the case for some but others may have concluded, in light of the exerience of the last three years, that the vision of Brexit sold to them in 2016, on the basis of which they voted to leave, was either unrealistic or downright dishonest, and that no actually deliverable form of Brexit is desirable.
The shift in preference may also be accounted for, at least in part, by demographics. A material proportion of voters today were too young to vote in 2016, and a material proportion of those who voted in 2016 have since died. Studies suggest that a preference for leave was markedly age-correlated so, unless we assume or have evidence that people get more brexity as they age, we might think that the simple passage of time would tend to favour the remain vote.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but it would take a majority like 1975 to really draw the sting. 52:48 the other way is just going to add to the poison. Plus I’m not sure, much as I regret it, that there’s a strong enough demand for a second referendum.
Yes, but he keeps his interferences as “effective” as this some of us would like it that he’ll keep trying.
I’m in the same boat. Is the stench of Trump’s endorsement (of Boris Johnson and Farage!) going to overwhelm the Corbyn smell?
There’s a persistent misconception in the UK that a referendum is a kind of Harry Potter-like incantation that will miraculously resolve political differences and produce a decision that commands a substantial public consensus.
It isn’t. A referendum is just one more way of making a decision, and it has no magical effects that other decision-making methods lack.
It may serve to reveal that a particular course of action does command the support of a substantial majority, and that revelation may lead those who oppose it to accept that their opposition cannot prevail and so to give up the struggle.
But, conversely, it may reveal that a particular course of action does not command the support of a substantial majority, but only a bare majority, and that even that bare majority has only been assembled by being deliberately vague about the proposed course of action. Such a revelation, far from discouraging those of the opposite view, will encourage them to redouble their efforts.
There’s posh ;)… no, Bristol South (Southville to be precise). It often feels like Bristol is a lone red island stranded in a shark invested blue sea.
Tom Watson quits as deputy Labour leader and won’t stand. Labour has gone completely off the rails. Corbyn’s purification is almost complete now. Too bad he won’t be leader and held to account for his disgusting narcissism and purity.
They could have been capitalising on Rees Mogg’s quotes and Cairns’ resignation, but they have managed to shoot themselves in the foot. It seems like they’re in a competition to see who can fuck up the campaign the most. It reminds me of the American election in 2016.