General Erection Thread Two: Let's Get Johnson Out (Of Number 10)

[Johnny Yesno]

Something I don't understand is how to play 4D chess i.e. when is a gaffe done on purpose by the Tories to distract people from an even bigger gaffe.

For example, was this a 4D chess move to distract from something else?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpcY6HsGmAM

The answer is it doesn't matter. The strategy is push all the buttons and seize on whatever is successful.

[Replies From View]

I really want the Labours to win obv, but if Johnson doesn't get a majority, there has to be a second referendum, and Remain will win and Brexit won't happen right? Then Labours can win next time.

Where would it leave Corbyn if he doesn't win this?  I'm assuming he'll face more calls to step down.

[olliebean]

Something I don't understand is how to play 4D chess i.e. when is a gaffe done on purpose by the Tories to distract people from an even bigger gaffe.

For example, was this a 4D chess move to distract from something else?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpcY6HsGmAM

Sometimes I wonder if it's done with the intention of further dragging down public trust in politicians in general, in the hope that the Tories will benefit from this because "at least you can tell when they're lying." I think this is a tactic that Trump uses.

[Johnny Yesno]

Sometimes I wonder if it's done with the intention of further dragging down public trust in politicians in general, in the hope that the Tories will benefit from this because "at least you can tell when they're lying." I think this is a tactic that Trump uses.

Yep.

And it's also a large helping of this: https://youtu.be/y8Q3PNNxNmk?t=15s

[greencalx]

I really want the Labours to win obv, but if Johnson doesn't get a majority, there has to be a second referendum, and Remain will win and Brexit won't happen right? Then Labours can win next time.

That's a good question. Presumably if we end up in the same place as before, then Johnson (if he doesn't resign) will have to continue with the WAB, with Parliament attaching amendments. Very likely that there would be a 2nd ref amendment, but whether it would pass would depend on the size of the minority. If it's close, then maybe some of the Labour leavers will vote against - however, I would expect it to be heavily whipped on the basis that there has just been an election with this as a manifesto commitment. LDs might abstain though, because it's the wrong kind of referendum, or something. Although I think they might have said at some point they would prefer a Johnson deal vs Remain ref (presumably because they worry that a Labour WAB could beat remain).

[greencalx]

Where would it leave Corbyn if he doesn't win this?  I'm assuming he'll face more calls to step down.

Another good question. Here I think it depends on how badly he doesn't win. If we end up in the space where Lab can lead a minority government, then he'll hang in there. Jo Swinson won't like it, but she will have to go fuck herself. If not, I have a feeling he may step down - I can't see him fighting another election in 5 years time. Discussions about possible successors probably belong in the Corbyn thread, but briefly I would expect it to be a ~4-way all-female contest. Long-Bailey seems to being groomed as the preferred left candidate; Rayner and/or Pidcock might throw their hats in the ring. And then I'm guessing our lass Jess Phillips will be there so the centrists can get themselves excited until she's massively rejected by the membership. Thornberry another possible, I suppose.

ETA: Also worth bearing in mind we're looking for a deputy. So maybe Corbyn will try and get some rule changes to get them elected on a joint ticket rather than separately, to avoid a Watson-like situation.

[Replies From View]

Not sure what I think of a joint ticket.  For what we knew when we were initially voting for Corbyn, we would probably all have gone for a Corbyn-Watson ticket (or would that never have been presented as an option?).

[idunnosomename]

Its likely part of the reason but theres still an obvious difference between him and say Cogan who is likely considerably richer.

than YOW

[Dr Rock]

Cos if Boris wins, but Brexit gets binned, I might just pop off to live in Spain until the horror is over. I'd be able to get me disability benefits and free prescriptions and I could have a little paddle in the med every day.

[greencalx]

Not sure what I think of a joint ticket.  For what we knew when we were initially voting for Corbyn, we would probably all have gone for a Corbyn-Watson ticket (or would that never have been presented as an option?).

I guess we're all a bit wiser now, and maybe the membership would check out the credentials of the deputy before voting for them... but at least with a joint ticket you would know that the pair in question actually believe they can work together.

[Fambo Number Mive]

An extremism expert has blamed "crazy austerity cuts" for the dangers posed by released terrorists and accused Boris Johnson of misrepresenting the crisis after the London Bridge attack.

The "destruction of the prison and probation service" under the Conservatives lay behind the threat, said Ian Acheson, who carried out a review for the government, adding: "You cannot get away from that."

The cause was "privately acknowledged" by ministers, he said, urging them to admit publicly: "We went far too far, far too fast – we are now reaping what we sowed."

The criticisms are hugely-damaging for the prime minister, coming just hours after he denied any possible link between steep funding cuts and the deadly attack carried out by Usman Khan last Friday...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-bridge-attack-boris-johnson-conservative-austerity-prison-cuts-terrorism-a9228376.html

Only the Independent seems to have picked this up. I feel uncomfortable using the terror attack to criticise Johnson, but he seems determned to use it to attack Labour.

[imitationleather]

I guess we're all a bit wiser now, and maybe the membership would check out the credentials of the deputy before voting for them... but at least with a joint ticket you would know that the pair in question actually believe they can work together.

Yeah what people think is possible and where the Labour party seems headed is completely different from how it was in 2015.

If Jess Phillips runs I may have to ask my ISP to block theguardian.com for the duration of the campaign for my own sake.

[Replies From View]

It's happening, the Momentum ground game is working.  Send them some money here if you can, there's no time to lose -

https://momentum.nationbuilder.com/50k_in_48_hours

Done, sent them £20.  Thanks for sharing the link.

[Dr Rock]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-bridge-attack-boris-johnson-conservative-austerity-prison-cuts-terrorism-a9228376.html

Only the Independent seems to have picked this up. I feel uncomfortable using the terror attack to criticise Johnson, but he seems determned to use it to attack Labour.

SIMILAR POINTS MADE HERE  oops caps   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCX1FGqx3d4

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Why is anyone still talking about the "terrorist attack"? For fucks sake. Dystopia.

[NoSleep]

I really want the Labours to win obv, but if Johnson doesn't get a majority, there has to be a second referendum, and Remain will win and Brexit won't happen right? Then Labours can win next time.

Presumably there will be a resurgence of UKIP/Brexit Party if the referendum isn't a convincing landslide, but it will depend on the Tories response to the result. We now know that the Brexit/UKIP vote will only chip away support for the Tories so they may be forced to support leave to retain votes. Could leave them totally fucked putting all their eggs in one basket like this.

[greencalx]

If Jess Phillips runs I may have to ask my ISP to block theguardian.com for the duration of the campaign for my own sake.

Likewise. Talking of which, I've not seen any Rawnsley shitposting recently.

Oh no, turns out he's still going, lamenting the Lib Dem campaign. Here's some fun quotes to brighten your Sunday evening:

When Ms Swinson then did get her opportunity to shine, she didn't. I thought she turned in an entirely respectable performance on the leaders' Question Time, but it must have been morale-draining to strut before a studio audience that would not reward a single one of her applause lines with a clap. Woundingly, some polls suggest that people like her less the more that they see of her.

Consider their manifesto. You will be a member of a select minority if you do. Compared with a deliberately thin Tory sales brochure and the fantastical wish lists in the pages of the Labour gift catalogue, the Lib Dems offer some plausible and progressive reforms. They also present the most convincing plan for decarbonising the economy. The Institute for Fiscal Studies judges the Lib Dem effort to be both radical and more fiscally credible than the funny-money prospectuses from the Tories and Labour.

Rawnsley regulars will be unsurprised that, as usual, it's all Corbyn's fault. Oh, and Prince Andrew.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Ha...he won't stop.

Let's move on and bring light into people's worlds.

The main focus: Use 1945 as an example to convince people that what Labour are proposing is possible and does not in any way guarantee economic collapse. In fact is is considerably more modest than what Attlee's government achieved.

I have personally noticed how much traction this has among older voters and received opinion loving naysayers who have just absorbed MSM bullshit. Perhaps it is the wartime spirit it evokes.

[jobotic]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/london-bridge-attack-boris-johnson-conservative-austerity-prison-cuts-terrorism-a9228376.html

Only the Independent seems to have picked this up. I feel uncomfortable using the terror attack to criticise Johnson, but he seems determned to use it to attack Labour.

Perhaps Marr could have picked it up when Johnson said a leftie government was responsible. Not left-wing, "leftie" like Tommy would say.

[Dr Rock]

Fuck the Institute Of Fiscal Studies anyway

In 2016, The Guardian stated: "Some left-leaning economists look with particular scepticism on the claim that the IFS has no ideology, arguing that the institute holds an excessive faith in the power of market forces. The tax campaigner Richard Murphy, a professor of political economy at City University who advised in Jeremy Corbyn's campaign for the Labour leadership, said the IFS was 'embedded in all the normal, standard pro-market assumptions that dominate conventional economic thinking in the UK and elsewhere'."[2] Richard Murphy also stated in a report that the "Institute for Fiscal Studies is a body that persistently recommends tax increases that benefit the wealthiest in society at cost to those who make their living from work and the poorest in society".[16]

A week before the 2019 manifesto analysis was released, Economist John Weeks contending that while the institute had no links to political groups, it had an inherent bias in its judgement criteria that 'favour[ed] accounting balance over social outcome', claiming that an IFS's analysis cannot tell the public 'whether a policy is a good idea, only whether "the numbers add up"'.

[lipsink]

I hope Jess Phillips runs I hope she realised it'll mean less time dancing.

Perhaps Chuka will come back and run. If he's not with the Green Party by then.

[kalowski]

You couldn't make it up!
But the Lib Dems could.

Jo Swinson's party has been fighting the website openDemocracy for weeks over a little-noticed article published last month about the party allegedly selling voter data to the remain campaign for £100,000 during the EU referendum.

As part of an attempt to have the story substantially retracted, the Liberal Democrats claimed openDemocracy failed to follow standard journalistic practice and ignored a denial from the party which had been emailed in advance of publication.
But openDemocracy said it had checked its records and no such email had ever been received.

The party's lawyers provided a screengrab of the supposed communication. The Lib Dems held this up as conclusive evidence that openDemocracy had engaged in journalistic malpractice and demanded a prominent written apology.

However, openDemocracy noticed something was amiss. It pointed out the screengrab of the supposed email from the Lib Dem official was dated 4.39pm on 12 November – the day before its journalist had approached the party for comment.

The investigative news website asked how it was possible that the Lib Dems were claiming to have documentary evidence of a party official sending a response 18 hours before the original question had been asked.

After several days of silence, the Lib Dems retracted the email and said an employee had been suspended pending an investigation into the provision of false information.

[Johnny Yesno]

Where's that from?

[greencalx]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/01/lib-dems-suspend-campaigner-over-apparent-email-forgery I think

[kalowski]

Yes.

[Johnny Yesno]

Cheers greencalx.

[greencalx]

Dr Rock's favourite pollster Survation shows the gap closing by two points to a still slightly uncomfortable 9 point gap. https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1201294584992677889?s=21. At this point in 2017 it was a 6 point lead.

For all the rhetoric about Good Polls and Bad Polls, Survation and YouGov were pretty consistent throughout the 2017 campaign - it was mainly the last polls before the election where they happened to diverge (and these of course are the ones that people remember). The two companies are reporting almost identical figures this time round.

Had a closer look at the YouGov tables. The LDs are doing worst at holding on to their 2017 vote, but this is more than offset by 10% of 2017 Labour voters moving to the LDs. (This has to be taken with some salt - the 2017 vote is self-reported in these polls, and apparently people often get it wrong). Despite my inclination towards Schadenfreude at Swinson bombing, some caution is needed. I'm hoping that people who are politically engaged enough to be flirting with the LDs due to their firmer Brexit stance will also be politically engaged enough to figure out whether they can actually win in their constituency. I think squeezing out Johnson requires some tactical LD voting in Tory held constituencies while Labour tries to get northern leavers back on side. And to hope that any Tory scalps on behalf of the LDs won't be cancelled out by Tories coming up the middle in Labour marginals.

[colacentral]

When you say that in 2017 it wasn't until their final polls that YouGov and Survation diverged - do you mean to say that Survation changed their weighting for their last poll?

It's the vote distribution that's important, isn't it, so although the LD percentage is low it probably translates to a few more seats, most likely to be Tory seats. There is a big push in seats like Raabs and IDS' to get them out, that I think will focus the minds of tactical voters. The SNP know their job is to get every Tory out of Scotland.

Trying to stay optimistic here. I do think this week will see another point or two off the gap. The Andrew Neil situation will only get worse for the Tories - either continue to dodge and look more and more deceitful, or do the interview and get ripped. It will make a difference.

[greencalx]

When you say that in 2017 it wasn't until their final polls that YouGov and Survation diverged - do you mean to say that Survation changed their weighting for their last poll?

I don't know what they did. The wide range of gaps reported reflect a huge amount of uncertainty. As far as I can tell the biggest uncertainty is in turnout, and as the single biggest determiner of voting intention seems to be age, then predictions of turnout by age group are key. There seem to be two ways that pollsters do this: self-reports, or matching to the previous election. I think I read somewhere that the polls with the narrower leads weight by the latter, and those with wider leads the former. Self-reporting is unreliable, but so I expect is assuming that nothing has changed since the previous election. It's possible that Survation or YouGov changed methodology towards the end of the campaign, but I doubt it, as they like to report polls that are performed consistently as otherwise changes can't be meaningfully interpreted. I suspect that Survation may have just got lucky. Another possibility is that they decided to do something different with Don't Knows.

What the latest Survation shows is a lower LD support (11%) relative to pretty much all the others (14%). Could be a fluctuation, could be the onset of a squeeze. Now that the election is next week, I think people are starting to think about it more seriously, and the Don't Knows will start to crystallise.

I think there will be some unpredictability in individual seats (I hope so, otherwise staying up through a cold night is going to be a bit miserable!), but my suspicion is that "surprise" defeats might affect both main parties equally, and cancel each other out. Like to be proved wrong though.

Hopefully in the North, Labour will push on the angle of the risk to the NHS from a Tory-style Brexit, in an effort to get people to take a punt on the chance of a Labour Brexit.

[greencalx]

Yes, I agree about the pincer movement. If SNP target the Tory seats in Scotland (I mean, they'll want the Labour ones as well, but for the purposes of this election switches between SNP and Lab are effectively neutral), LDs the Tory shires and Labour focus on their heartlands, we could be in with a shout.