Westminster voting intention

SuperStu said:
Again, the Lib Dem support and representatives for whom working with the tories was not acceptable have left already. What they have now is individuals for whom working with the tories is acceptable.




Firstly, the Lib Dems had the chance to block Brexit in 2019. They were so put off by the idea of having a left wing Labour leader as PM (even in a short term government that only enacts the Brexit policy the Lib Dems wanted) that they instead went for tory government and hard brexit. So it's not such a deal breaker for them really.

If the majority that a Labour+everyone coalition would have is smaller than the number of SCG MPs I can see this really putting the Lib Dems off. They won't want to risk being held to ransom by anyone remotely left wing.

Secondly, the tories will do anything to keep power. They'll maybe get rid of Boris before the next election. If not, and if they lose enough seats that they're trying to negotiate a coalition with the Lib Dems, they'll definitely change leader then. Don't be surprised if a new non-Boris leader is happy to negotiate something like EFTA membership as the price of keeping themselves in number 10.
Click to expand...
What with a party that wanted to put the nation through a 2nd referendum with a supposed "better" deal it was assured it would get from the EU?
 
Ex Footy Legs said:
What I will never do though is underestimate them because they were dead and buried constitutionally back when Brexit was a mess but they basically culled the whole party of remainers to move forward and couldn’t care less about the country as long as they survived and they’ll stop at nothing to survive
Click to expand...

I think this is the shrewdest post on the thread and needs to be applied to these points about the Lib Dems and tories supposed policy differences.

We've got a tory government nationalising rail franchises and increasing corporation tax. They're really not averse to adopting policies you wouldn't expect them to take. I highly doubt there'll be anything in the next Lib Dem manifesto so unpalatable to the tories that they can't come up with a deal.

If Labour were agreeing to PR perhaps that would be able to trump anything the tories could/would make a deal on. But that would need such high Labour and Lib Dem numbers that it's probably not realistic anyway.
 
MFP said:
I did look for myself

What with a party that wanted to put the nation through a 2nd referendum with a supposed "better" deal it was assured it would get from the EU?
Click to expand...

Yes. Why what's the problem with that? You almost make it sound like the Lib Dems wouldn't want another EU referendum?

2016-2019 all the Lib Dems talked about was remaining in the EU. Having a confirmatory vote. Then when the numbers were there it turned out that was secondary to changing Labour's leadership for them.
 
The Labour party of 2019 is not the same as the one that exists right now, at least according to yourself given you think they're Tory-lite, so why would they not appeal more to the Lib Dems than the Tories, especially as they already got into that bed and are still suffering the reputation damage for doing so and the fact they are ideologically opposed to the most prominent political issue at present?
 
MFP said:
The Labour party of 2019 is not the same as the one that exists right now, at least according to yourself given you think they're Tory-lite, so why would they not appeal more to the Lib Dems than the Tories, especially as they already got into that bed and are still suffering the reputation damage for doing so and the fact they are ideologically opposed to the most prominent political issue at present?
Click to expand...

Yeah fair point. Labour certainly is different.

I've already mentioned it but my answer would be if the Lib Dems were worried about the SCG MPs effectively being another coalition partner that could swing them behind the tories rather than Labour.
 
SuperStu said:
We've got a tory government nationalising rail franchises and increasing corporation tax. They're really not averse to adopting policies you wouldn't expect them to take. I highly doubt there'll be anything in the next Lib Dem manifesto so unpalatable to the tories that they can't come up with a deal.

If Labour were agreeing to PR perhaps that would be able to trump anything the tories could/would make a deal on. But that would need such high Labour and Lib Dem numbers that it's probably not realistic anyway.
Click to expand...
The tories are good at doing things that appear good on first look, but when you dive deeper it's just a facade, to catch votes from the less clued up. It's like a few things which have been done in our area, like the Airport etc. Sounds good, but it's probably going to be a bit of a money pit, and who is actually using it? It costs more to fly from there than anywhere else, so it's not really benefitting the lower earners, they will fly from where it's cheaper, it will benefit those who can afford convenience.

Nationalising Rail won't be a good thing, who is going to run it? It would be an endless pit of money, largely due to the horrendous operation of Network Rail (which is nationalised). Having worked in engineering and construction for >20 years, Network Rail is by far the least efficient, least well ran and least competent company I've ever seen, even moreso for its size. They're also absolute criminally exploitative of the growth of infrastructure for others. Ask anyone that's tried to work on a rail project, or god forbid, tried to cross any Network Rail land as a third party, or been in the zone of influence of their land. They just hold everyone to ransom, their incompetence forces them to be crooks, to make up for their incompetence. I deal with them weekly, they're beyond a joke. Albeit their inefficiency is often inversely proportional to my personal gain as a rail consultant, it may be good for me, but it's not for infrastructure and certainly not the public/ inflation/ house prices/ construction costs etc.

Increasing corporation tax by 1,5,10% or whatever is only increasing tax on businesses that are profitable and those that don't write off that tax through R&D (or divert tax abroad, which the Tories facilitate). Most will suffer under Tory rule, as proven by their own economic forecasts for the brexit they pushed. 1% more corp tax on a bankrupt company, or one whose profits reduce by 10%, or who writes off more tax as "R&D", is meaningless, and easily a net loss when your main economic driver is hamstrung.

Labour are agreeing to PR, by not agreeing to it, in a way. They need a coalition, so we will get PR through that, in a way. There's no PR in supporting Tories though, as there's not much of a split vote on their side.
 
I don't see Lib Dem getting into bed with the Tories again, not after their stance on Brexit and how they got turned over last time. They would be better having more control over Labour and stealing Tory votes.
 
Andy_W said:
The tories are good at doing things that appear good on first look, but when you dive deeper it's just a facade, to catch votes from the less clued up. It's like a few things which have been done in our area, like the Airport etc. Sounds good, but it's probably going to be a bit of a money pit, and who is actually using it? It costs more to fly from there than anywhere else, so it's not really benefitting the lower earners, they will fly from where it's cheaper, it will benefit those who can afford convenience.

Nationalising Rail won't be a good thing, who is going to run it? It would be an endless pit of money, largely due to the horrendous operation of Network Rail (which is nationalised). Having worked in engineering and construction for >20 years, Network Rail is by far the least efficient, least well ran and least competent company I've ever seen, even moreso for its size. They're also absolute criminally exploitative of the growth of infrastructure for others. Ask anyone that's tried to work on a rail project, or god forbid, tried to cross any Network Rail land as a third party, or been in the zone of influence of their land. They just hold everyone to ransom, their incompetence forces them to be crooks, to make up for their incompetence. I deal with them weekly, they're beyond a joke. Albeit their inefficiency is often inversely proportional to my personal gain as a rail consultant, it may be good for me, but it's not for infrastructure and certainly not the public/ inflation/ house prices/ construction costs etc.

Increasing corporation tax by 1,5,10% or whatever is only increasing tax on businesses that are profitable and those that don't write off that tax through R&D (or divert tax abroad, which the Tories facilitate). Most will suffer under Tory rule, as proven by their own economic forecasts for the brexit they pushed. 1% more corp tax on a bankrupt company, or one whose profits reduce by 10%, or who writes off more tax as "R&D", is meaningless, and easily a net loss when your main economic driver is hamstrung.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed my point Andy. The merits of nationalising rail or increasing corporation tax aren't relevant. The point is the tories are shameless about policies. They will support or oppose whatever they need to support or oppose in order to keep themselves in power. I was responding to the suggestion that the tories couldn't possibly agree to any Lib Dem policies which in my view is bogus.

I'm repeating myself again but don't be surprised to see a new tory leader suddenly very conciliatory about the relationship with the EU and EFTA membership being on the table. Don't forget most tory MPs were against brexit before the referendum.

Andy_W said:
Labour are agreeing to PR, by not agreeing to it, in a way. They need a coalition, so we will get PR through that, in a way. There's no PR in supporting Tories though, as ther
Click to expand...

Maybe. IMO I wouldn't start counting your chickens yet.

The SNP will surely want an independence vote as their price for being in any coalition. PR would weaken their position.
 
SuperStu said:
I think you've missed my point Andy. The merits of nationalising rail or increasing corporation tax aren't relevant. The point is the tories are shameless about policies. They will support or oppose whatever they need to support or oppose in order to keep themselves in power. I was responding to the suggestion that the tories couldn't possibly agree to any Lib Dem policies which in my view is bogus.

I'm repeating myself again but don't be surprised to see a new tory leader suddenly very conciliatory about the relationship with the EU and EFTA membership being on the table. Don't forget most tory MPs were against brexit before the referendum.



Maybe. IMO I wouldn't start counting your chickens yet.

The SNP will surely want an independence vote as their price for being in any coalition. PR would weaken their position.
Click to expand...

Might not need the SNP.
 
SuperStu said:
I think you've missed my point Andy. The merits of nationalising rail or increasing corporation tax aren't relevant. The point is the tories are shameless about policies. They will support or oppose whatever they need to support or oppose in order to keep themselves in power. I was responding to the suggestion that the tories couldn't possibly agree to any Lib Dem policies which in my view is bogus.

I'm repeating myself again but don't be surprised to see a new tory leader suddenly very conciliatory about the relationship with the EU and EFTA membership being on the table. Don't forget most tory MPs were against brexit before the referendum.



Maybe. IMO I wouldn't start counting your chickens yet.

The SNP will surely want an independence vote as their price for being in any coalition. PR would weaken their position.
Click to expand...

It's definitely going to be a problem for labour the whole indyref2 thing, despite it being a problem of the Tory's making. Not sure there's an obvious right way to handle it.

They're going to be asked about it in the lead up to any election. That's a given, particularly if polling indicates a hung parliament. So do they say clearly they would not hold indyref2 under any circumstances during the next parliament or do they take a non committal stance?

I'd personally be tempted with the former to be honest. I think you can justify it "country has been through enough upheaval we need to repair the damage done by the conservatives before even considering further potentially damaging changes to the country etc etc" and it would effectively remove it from the table as a condition of any coalition in the event of a hung parliament.

Suppose the big risk is would the SNP just refuse to go into coalition with labour full stop then? I would hope not. They surely stand for more than just independence so turning down the chance to have real influence in government would be cutting their nose off to spite their face.
 
Lefty said:
Might not need the SNP.
Click to expand...

True. Maybe not.

Supposing Sinn Fein get arround 7 seats again, then you're looking at needing 322 seats for a majority. Suppose SDLP, Plaid and the Greens can provide about 6 or 7 then you need Labour and the Lib Dems to get around 315 between them. 100+ gains.

Assuming Labour aren't likely to take many off the SNP then they're needing to win tory seats with majorities up to about 7,000 votes.

With the SNP involved as well Labour only need to be winning seats that currently have about 5,000 tory majorities.
 
SuperStu said:
True. Maybe not.

Supposing Sinn Fein get arround 7 seats again, then you're looking at needing 322 seats for a majority. Suppose SDLP, Plaid and the Greens can provide about 6 or 7 then you need Labour and the Lib Dems to get around 315 between them. 100+ gains.

Assuming Labour aren't likely to take many off the SNP then they're needing to win tory seats with majorities up to about 7,000 votes.

With the SNP involved as well Labour only need to be winning seats that currently have about 5,000 tory majorities.
Click to expand...
The elephant in the room is the potential boundary changes however - that will make it even more difficult for Labour to get the numbers they need if the changes come to pass.
 
SuperStu said:
I think you've missed my point Andy. The merits of nationalising rail or increasing corporation tax aren't relevant. The point is the tories are shameless about policies. They will support or oppose whatever they need to support or oppose in order to keep themselves in power. I was responding to the suggestion that the tories couldn't possibly agree to any Lib Dem policies which in my view is bogus.

I'm repeating myself again but don't be surprised to see a new tory leader suddenly very conciliatory about the relationship with the EU and EFTA membership being on the table. Don't forget most tory MPs were against brexit before the referendum.

Maybe. IMO I wouldn't start counting your chickens yet.

The SNP will surely want an independence vote as their price for being in any coalition. PR would weaken their position.
Click to expand...
Not missed your point, I was sort of agreeing with you, then expanding on it.

What I meant was the policies they put in might surprise some, but they are not "left" policies, they're just designed to look like they are. It's like giving a guy £5, but pickpocketing £10 whilst you do it.

You're right about them doing whatever they need to, in order to cling on to power. Labour need to do something similar to get into power, then once in power, they can look to change things. They can't change things by appealing more to the "left", they need to grab more of the middle before they do that.

They might agree to Lib Dem policies, but the last time Lib Dem didn't get what they wanted from the Tories and then got pickpocketed by them for votes, then went and dig the exact opposite what lib dem (and their voters wanted, re Brexit). Once bitten twice shy, for Lib Dem, but the Tories bit them, bit them again and then threw them in the lake.

If Tories chucked Bojo and signed back up to the Single Market/ CU, or at least paid for access/ parity with it, then I would take that, to be honest, it is a step in the right direction at least. I'd still be voting labour though, or whoever had the best chance of beating in them for our seat.

SNP would want indyref 2, but every party in the coalition would want single market and customs union, and if they get that, then SNP's indyref vote likely wouldn't go through anyway. If we (ran by Tories) keep dragging the other nations into deals they don't want, they will leave regardless, one way or another, and they would be right to.
 
Does anyone know how a proposed change to PR plays out with Scottish voters?

It might lead to a switch from the SNP to Labour for one election for those who vote SNP out of dissatisfaction with Westminster and Labour rather than really wanting independence.
 
festa5 said:
It's definitely going to be a problem for labour the whole indyref2 thing, despite it being a problem of the Tory's making. Not sure there's an obvious right way to handle it.

They're going to be asked about it in the lead up to any election. That's a given, particularly if polling indicates a hung parliament. So do they say clearly they would not hold indyref2 under any circumstances during the next parliament or do they take a non committal stance?

I'd personally be tempted with the former to be honest. I think you can justify it "country has been through enough upheaval we need to repair the damage done by the conservatives before even considering further potentially damaging changes to the country etc etc" and it would effectively remove it from the table as a condition of any coalition in the event of a hung parliament.

Suppose the big risk is would the SNP just refuse to go into coalition with labour full stop then? I would hope not. They surely stand for more than just independence so turning down the chance to have real influence in government would be cutting their nose off to spite their face.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is, as a whole, Scotland needs England, and vice versa, we're both stronger together. Same applies to Wales, NI etc.
But if Scotland had to pick England or the Single Market and Customs Union, then they would probably pick the latter, and be right to do so.

Scotland wants SM & CU, if we give them that (which is also better for England, and the Union), then there would be far less appetite for them to leave via indyref, and start from scratch and go it alone, rejoining the EU, SM and CU etc.
 
Andy_W said:
The way I see it is, as a whole, Scotland needs England, and vice versa, we're both stronger together. Same applies to Wales, NI etc.
But if Scotland had to pick England or the Single Market and Customs Union, then they would probably pick the latter, and be right to do so.

Scotland wants SM & CU, if we give them that (which is also better for England, and the Union), then there would be far less appetite for them to leave via indyref, and start from scratch and go it alone, rejoining the EU, SM and CU etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah completely agree. I'd argue would significantly weaken the case for allowing another referendum at all.
 
festa5 said:
Yeah completely agree. I'd argue would significantly weaken the case for allowing another referendum at all.
Click to expand...
The thing is, I would probably still allow indyref, if we were going back in SM and CU, as it would hopefully give scottish voters some faith that they do still have a choice, and that also would put a negative indyref result further away. Any time the goal posts get moved, it's only fair they get to chose their own destiny.

I absolutely despise how we treat the rest of "the union", with regards to dragging them out of the SM and CU, when they cleary wanted to remain in it. Especially with the UK not having a vote, or a say on the makeup of the Brexit "deal". Tories picked the worst "deal" (i.e no deal), that even most of the Brexiters didn't want, and which was by far the least preferred version for the whole UK (especially the rest of the union).
 
SuperStu said:
True. Maybe not.

Supposing Sinn Fein get arround 7 seats again, then you're looking at needing 322 seats for a majority. Suppose SDLP, Plaid and the Greens can provide about 6 or 7 then you need Labour and the Lib Dems to get around 315 between them. 100+ gains.

Assuming Labour aren't likely to take many off the SNP then they're needing to win tory seats with majorities up to about 7,000 votes.

With the SNP involved as well Labour only need to be winning seats that currently have about 5,000 tory majorities.
Click to expand...

True, but that's assuming that the SNP would actively oppose any such coalition. Given that they've always ruled out supporting a Tory government, then you might be able to get away with them simply abstaining in any votes on the Budget, Queen's Speech, etc.

If you assume the SNP would win a minimum of 40 seats (probably more like 50) then, if they abstain on supply and confidence votes, you would need around 300 seats to have a working majority. Using your figures, that would mean Labour/Lib Dems getting 290-295 between them, so around 80 gains.

The problem would be that the SNP would definitely oppose any move to PR (certainly without a guarantee of IndyRef2), which is just about the only thing that Labour, Lib Dems, Plaid, Greens, etc. would be able to form an electoral pact around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top