I'm looking forward to a photo of Trump with his arm round Johnson's back. The puppet master.

Yes, most of my friends and family are in safe Tory seats, but will vote for other party's, so their votes are meaningless/wasted when it comes to the result of the election.

Labour, but it is irrelevant because I'm in a safe Conservative seat.

The dossier was handed to him by a whistleblower yesterday and all he's saying is that it is evidence of what will be on the table in the post Brexit trade deal. With the follow up that Johnson is being dishonest about it.

The important thing is that the voters who don't spend much time looking into such things are aware of Johnson's duplicity and the reality of how tough the trade talks with the US might be.

For people like us who do give it a bit more thought, we should be under no illusions about what a hard ball game the US negotiators will play and how they will push for wide open access to our markets while we are in a position of weakness. That Johnson is unreliable and weak in the face of hard nosed business interests. That he will sell out our business interests, even if we get a reasonable trade deal with the US.

Not to mention the elephant in the room, that the US won't negotiate until all the future arrangements with the EU have been sorted out. Which will require the brexiter government to make up its mind again, which it repeatedly fails to do. That the US will demand a hard Brexit during the decade of negotiations with the EU to try and thrash this out( this is the optimistic view, what's more likely is that the Johnson government will descend into chaos and the economy and welfare state will pay the price).

Breaking news about 450 pages of unredacted documents, of the notes, or minutes of meetings about a possible trade deal with the US, with the government, from the middle of 2017-18, released by the Labour Party, obtained through freedom of information laws.

Detailing amongst other things "full access" to markets, including the NHS. Noting the insistence that drug pricing will be at the front of the pile. NICE being the first target.

Looks like a smoking gun.

Check out Sky News.

Blair is a staunch remainer, he has no choice but to support Labour. Presumably he would tactically vote depending on the circumstances in his constituency.

Here is Corbyn 40 years ago, on the right is a photo of the members of the Bullingdon club, at the same time. In the photo are Johnson, Cameron, Osbourne( he's not in the photo, but is a member)

I’ve read these sort of comments before. Why do you think that’s what’s happening? Why do you think it’s true?

It is widely understood here that there is this generational divide. Personally, nearly every old person I know is a leaving Conservative supporter. While all the young people I know are the opposite.

There are two reasons for what the younger people think. One, they are disillusioned with a Thatcherite model due to the results of the credit crunch. Secondly, they have not experienced any issues which would foster an anti EU sentiment. For the older folk, firstly, they are steeped in the affluence they accrued during the Thatcherite period, particularly through the housing market. Secondly, they have been infected with anti EU sentiment over a long period.

Yes there is an unprecedented level of silliness. Due to our political system the result is going to be decided by a small group of voters in a few seats. A large portion of these voters are susceptible to dog whistle politics.

Regarding the overton window, in this country anti-discrimination and anti-racism is scrupulously held, there is a Protestant ethic on this and the broadcast media would not be able to veer away from this.

"the Enemy of Humanity"

Yes agreed, this conflation is widespread in this country. My point is what is it the anxious Jews making this intervention think is going to happen? That they will be persecuted by the government, or the home office. Because their intervention is a direct move to sway the election and therefore who forms the next government.
I agree that it is probably mud slinging, but in our society it is a taboo to criticise claims of racist bias like this. So it's mud which sticks.

I agree entirely with your observations on the populism sweeping the world and it's use in this country.
I would point out that the anti-Corbyn sentiment is endemic in our establishment, it is not specific to Corbyn, but he is a classic example of what they fear. It is the same bias that occurred when Michael Foot ran for government in the early 80's. The establishment, the wealthy and the privelidged are rabidly anti any form of socialism. By contrast the critisism of Johnson is little more than depicting him as a bumbling jester, a lovable rogue, who would naturally due to his privelidge and grooming by the establishment schools and colleges, secure our best interests.

I suggest that such prejudice is difficult for people who have not grown up here to appreciate the subtlety of this distinction.

The chief rabbi and the interviewee on the Today program, are explicitly telling the population to vote for the Conservative party today. It's true that there is an anti-Semitic problem amongst members of the Labour Party, but what are they suggesting is going to happen if Corbyn forms a government in a hung parliament?
It is implicit in the remarks that people who are not Jews should secure a conservative government to assuage a feeling of unease amongst the Jewish population.
So Johnson's racism and policies is going to improve the degree of unease?

The problem is this is dog whistle populism which can't be challenged, because of its sensitivity. It may tip the balance between a sensible resolution to the Brexit issue, which would begin to heal the division and start to bring the country back together. In favour of an intensification of the division and chaos, plunging the country into a populist nose dive into Trump, or Putins hands.

It is grossly irresponsible for a religious leader to intervene in this way.

The Conservative party released their manifesto yesterday, it was incredibly underwhelming and launched on a Sunday afternoon. It looks as though they don't want to make a gaff and will just rely on the leave vote to push them over the line. Commentators say this is because in 2017 they made a manifesto gaff which lost them their majority, the dementia tax.

To me this looks weak and cowardly, while displaying indifference to the important pressing public service crisis we are enduring now following 9 years of unpopular austerity. The problem is people might think austerity is not over, which the conservatives are claiming and they would be right.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/nov/22/target-seats-2019-general-election-interactive

This website shows targeted marginals for the main party's. It's difficult to work out where Labour and Lib Dems overlap, because it doesn't show the third party's position in a marginal, only the two main contenders. It looks as though there is not much overlap though.

On the Andrew Marr show on Sunday Jo Swinson said, she thought the Tory's were likely to win at the moment and almost, but not quite hinted that she may do a pact of some sort with Labour. I don't know if, or how candidates can be pulled now that they have been submitted. My worry has always been that the Brexit Party would pull all their Candidates the day before the poll, but I don't know if, or how this would happen.

Unless it reflects a change of opinion related to age. One way to tell is whether there are older graphs like this and if younger support for conservatives was higher there or not.

I have had a look for older graphs, I haven't found anything easy to read before 2015 so far, but it looks like this trend has been building for about a decade. Before that the split was more even between the age groups.

I see it as inevitable due to the fall in living standards and the growing mistrust in the Thatcherite model, which has had some negative effects over the last 20 years. The older age group is still living in the Thatcherite era and have retained the wealth thereof. But the younger generations are increasinly feeling disenfranchised, poorer, with poorer prospects. There is a clamour for a redistribution of wealth which is unfairly balanced in favour of the older generation.

Interestingly the older generation is also a lot more in favour of Brexit, than the younger generation. That graph and this one about the referendum demonstrate how there is a deep generational divide, in which the older generation wants to give the younger generation what they don't want and then go and die of old age and leave them with the mess to clear up.

Graph of age demographic.
This is why the Conservatives are worried, it's only a matter of time before they become a party with no chance of winning an election. As I see it, they began to nose dive following the Credit Crunch, especially when austerity began to bite.

I assume that you Punshhh aren't a conservative, so I guess you are the people helping Johnson getting the conservatives to support him with those kind of remarks... if you would be a reporter.

Yes, I support the Greens, but my vote like many many others won't count, as I live in a safe Conservative seat. I doubt my remarks would sway any voters on this forum (which is the only one I write on). I doubt there are any subscribers on this forum who support Johnson, or could be swayed to do so by the remarks I make. Also the division between leave and remain is so deep, that to a large extent it doesn't matter anymore what anyone says, or does. This is why Johnson can get away with his behaviour, which is very uncharacteristic of the behaviour of a PM in this country.

In reference to the media, it is almost entirely anti Corbyn and is only slightly critical of Johnson. It's more a case of the media not knowing how to deal with the unprecedented way the government is behaving, allowing it to get away with far more than would usually be the case. There is a very good commentator on this issue called Peter Obourne, I will post a link to his blog/articles tomorrow.

but if Labour/Lib Dems vote for eachother to beat the Tories it could make a large difference.

Yes, I don't think it will happen though. Although as I mentioned a few pages back, there aren't all that many seats where Labour and Lib Dems overlap( marginal). Whereas there are a lot where Tory's and Lib Dems overlap. Also Any seat which goes to a party other than the Tory's is a seat going towards preventing a Tory majority( apart from any Brexit party seats, although they have never won any as yet, I doubt they will win more than two or three).

Oh also about the poll tracker, the BBC has the polltracker on their website, along with a list of all the constituencies with the share of the votes from the 2017 election. They frequently tell their viewers to go to the website and have a look. It's part of their drive to get their viewers to be more interactive.

Yes, I found that interesting. I think these pole trackers aren't giving us a true picture, for two reasons. It doesn't reflect the vote share destributed among constituencies and it doesn't show the effect of tactical voting. If one looks into constituencies and marginals, it gets quite complicated.

I was looking at the constituencies around the area where I live. My constituency is a safe Tory seat. In 2017 Tory's had approx 35,000 votes and Labour had17,000 votes, Lib Dems about 1,000.
So if you look at it in terms of wasted votes, the conservatives only needed 17,001 votes to win, so 17,999 were wasted on this constituency. Labour wasted 17,000 and the Lib Dems only 1,000. But it took a total of 35,000 of the the national Tory vote to secure the constituency. There are a lot of constituencies like this around here, basically all the rural constituencies in East Anglia, except North Norfolk. So roughly, it takes a lot of the national Tory share of the vote to secure these constituencies, whereas Labour has lost approximately half as much of their national share in these areas and Lib Dems, much less.

I know these demographics may work the other way in different areas, but it illustrates how unpredictable it is if one is not analysing the constituencies in more detail. Also, there is evidence of a lot more floating voters on this occasion than usual, making it more unpredictable. And a large number of younger voters introduced to the system, due to record numbers registering to vote.

This is a fascinating video broadcast on BBC Question Time recorded lastnight. It illustrates how low income relative to wealth has become in this country. The relationship between Labour (work) and capital.

The system is rigged to gradually drive down wages for the people who work. While the people who live on capital keep quiet and spend as little as possible, so that the workers don't realise where all the wealth is. When the Labour Party says it will increase tax for people earning over £80,000, people like this man think that they are taxing the ordinary worker, because he doesn't think he is in the top 5%. He thinks he's in the bottom half of earners, but actually he is in the top 5%.


https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514

Wow.

Yes, they are desperate. This is an existential crisis for the Conservative party, they are terrified that a truly socialist party can get into government and take to task their privelidged lifestyles, so they fear. That the public could get a taste for it, while their party fades into oblivion due to the change in the demographic( the younger generations don't favour the Conservative party).

Most people are basically selfish, and kind unselfish people seldom get rich..

Yes, the people who are rich tend to be more selfish, or put more effort into accruing wealth for some reason. The poor are more vulnerable and rely more on the state to look after their interests. Although there is a strange phenomena of poor people voting for the rich to keep them poor, a kind of defeatist attitude.

The reason that the government hasn't come out all guns blazing at the Labour manifesto is that they too are planning to say that they are going to splash the cash. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They seem to be tying themselves into a knot. This morning Priti Patel the Home Secretary started blaming the housing crisis and poverty on councils and providers who the government has starved of cash for the last 9 years. So basically blaming the government and claiming that the government is now going to put it right.

Now that the Labour manifesto has come out, lots of wealthy and powerful people are coming out of the woodwork and claiming that the're under attack, they'll leave the country etc. When all is being proposed is that they pay a little more tax, or pay the taxes they are avoiding paying. Oh, and it will bankrupt the country etc. With no thought for the poor.

Interesting that the conversation has moved on from Brexit...


The problem with the view that a labour government would bankrupt the country which is the usual slur. Is that most people don't remember what happened in the 1950's and 1970's. The older predominantly Tory supporting part of the population, who were there at the time, are falling in number due to demographic forces.

Whereas on the other side of the debate, the string of failing, or profiteering private provision of essential services over the last 30 years spells out that privatisation is not all it's cracked up to be either. I think I only need to mention two names to illustrate this point, for now. Jarvis and Carillion.

Yes, I agree about sticking to party lines. I mentioned it because the media focussed on it as being boring and not broadening the debate and were spinning lines that they were unfit to be prime minister because of it. Which I didn't agree with, I realised that they were aiming at a small audience of undecided, or poorly informed voters, so wanted to give them, their primary attack lines.

I thought Corbyn's reluctance to commit to a view was Johnson's attack line, he didn't seem to have any others apart from a few mumbled references to " the highest corporation tax in Europe", or 1.2 trillion in spending under Corbyn. Both blatantly in accurate. When I realised that was his only attack line, I was surprised and relieved, because it is in fact irrelevant. As Rebecca Long Bailey pointed out on Newsnight after the debate. Their policy is that the people would decide in a referendum, and the party would decide democratically in conference when the referendum is called what the party line would be and frontline politicians wouldn't be whipped on it. That It is sensible for Corbyn not to express a view going into a renegotiation with the EU, as it was a matter of negotiation.

I don't know why the right wing rags were banging on about it yesterday morning. Do they really not have anything else to attack Corbyn with?

I have seen a few other polls on the debate, Corbyn is well ahead in all of them. I don't have time now to link them.

Anyway Dominic Raab the Tory Secretary of State said "no one gives a toss about social media" on BBC breakfast this morning. So it doesn't matter anyway.

Thanks for that, there is so much going on now, I can't write it all here. The first time I saw this false poll was on BBC in the follow up coverage. Looks like the gremlins in the BBC are spreading fake news again.


Update,
The i newspaper is saying that the poll wasn't held before the debate, but immediately after and that the time referenced on the webpage had not been updated. Also they say the claim went viral amongst Corbyn supporters. I'm not sure what to think on that one. YouGov who ran the pole is run by Nadim Zahawi, a Conservative cabinet minister, so the result is dubious anyway.

James OBrian on LBC has just made an interesting observation. In reference to the fraudulent change of the name and title of the Conservative press twitter account, yesterday during the debate lastnight.
The title was changed to FactcheckerUK aping genuine fact checker organisations, which have become important in UK politics, due to so much disinformation and untruths. This is a big story this morning.

What James is saying is that in the Tory spin press office during the debate, while in the knowledge that the headlines in the dominant right wing press would slam Corbyn in the morning. Decided to create this fraudulent fact checker because they were worried about Corbyn's attack on what a Johnson government would do to sell out the NHS. Why are they so scarred? That they would pull that stunt.

Maybe it's because the younger generations have been signing up to vote in large numbers since the vote was called and we all know what they think of the Tory's.

Highlights of the leaders debate, its difficult to be impartial due to the depth of the political division. Audience and initial public reaction is split, meaning that their opinions can't be taken as impartial.

For me the stand out points come down to the compulsive lying, the failure to answer questions and sound plausible by Johnson and the inability of Corbyn to address Brexit other than his fixed party line. Both were hamstrung by their party lines, Johnson "get Brexit done", Corbyn " I'll negotiate a sensible deal and offer it back to the people in a referendum".

Johnson's weakness, is he only has one policy, one slogan, one goal, get it done. Corbyn's weakness is he has to straddle a split party so has to try to appeal to both sides and not to alienate one, or the other.

Johnson is a one trick pony, a pony, who is untrustworthy, divisive and doesn't care for the real issues in the country.

Corbyn is balancing on a fence and finding himself a socialist up against four decades of anti socialist sentiment, drip fed by the press and pretty much endemic in public perception at this time. While having an extensive and progressive socialist plan to restore the social and economic health of the country, which is desperately wanted by a portion of the population and dismissed as Marxist by another portion.

Johnson's policy other than "just get it done", is more of the same deregulated capitalism, failure to address the disintegrating public services. More stripping of workers rights. And the prospect of a rip roaring capitalist trade deal with Trump selling out the NHS and access to a deregulated marketplace, a race to the bottom.

The sensible choice for me is a no brainer, it is depressing how many people are caught up in prejudice and deceit and can't think clearly about what is important for the country.

There will be a leaders debate tonight at 8.00pm on ITV. Between Johnson and Corbyn. It will be broadcast widely on news channels if you're not in the UK.

That's what I find hard to accept. The right of the Tory party reflects a public view. Its Mps don't exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of us.

Yes I don't deny that they did reflect a public view. But the public was from my experience quite isolated from the general public politically. It was mainly well off Tory supporters in Tory heartlands. Anyway going back to the hard right, I heard it from the horses mouth at the time. My ex partners father was the political editor of The Times during the 1980's, the time I am referring to and was present in the political establishment throughout the period. Anti EU rhetoric spread slowly through the party base, I was persuaded to an extent at the time. But decided a few years later that the fears were largely unfounded and the benefits of EU membership outweigh the issues they were concerned about. Well apart from those who were convinced that the Germans where planning to create a European superstate which they would control. If you subscribed to that view, there was no way back.

I'm not sure what it was that Blair allowed then... And why didn't the Tories un-allow it from 2010? Thereafter is when the immigration issue really blossomed.

In 2004 the other countries already in the EU put working and residency restrictions on immigrants from the east European states when they joined. The UK didn't, they could have done, but Blair didn't think many would come and thought it would be beneficial.

but in part it reflects a public view on the EU rules.

I just wanted to pick up on these two points. The "public view" on EU rules has been primed by the tabloid press and figures like Boris Johnson spreading spurious claims about EU rules. Most if not all of it is wrong, or inaccurate.

The anti-EU view is a legitimate one

Of course there is such a thing as anti-EU sentiment. But the only legitimate one I can identify is the one of political independence and Sovereignty. Although most of the rhetoric I hear on this point is spurious, which is due to a misunderstanding of how the EU works and what we are doing in cooperating in such a Union.
Again this has been primed by the tabloids and anti EU politicians spreading spurious claims.

This is evident in the fact that if one looks at the comment on the EU and our involvement in it in the media, it has for a number of years been entirely negative, i.e. Pointing out things about our membership which are not in our interest, while at no point mentioning what is in our interest.

If this is not a bias in the media, then where is the comment in favour of both our involvement and our future in the EU?

I was blaming the idea of leaving the EU on the Tory party. On the assumption that UKIP was a Tory party phenomenon, part of the split in the party.

It is well known that the threat of UKIP once it was established is what pushed the Tory's and New Labour to start talking about the idea of leaving. Blair only talked about it because the conversation had been started by UKIP, which in turn only started talking about it because right wing Tory's had been talking about it for a decade before that.

What added fuel to the fire was Blair's decision to allow unfettered access for east European citizens in 2004. At that point very few people were unhappy with our membership, or were talking about leaving. So the idea of leaving was already in place at this point and was predominantly held by Tory's and disaffected Tory's in UKIP.

These groupings found fertile ground following the large numbers of EU citizens who came in over the next few years. The populist press quickly took up the batton and the anti EU sentiment grew quickly.

As far as I know this development didn't split the Labour Party, but was exerting internal pressures in the Tory party. This resulted in hard right Tory's who had been kept quiet flexing their muscles within the party. Resulting in Cameron concluding that the only way to prevent the party splitting and hemorrhaging significant numbers to UKIP was to call a referendum, therefore shutting them up for a generation.

If Blair talked about a referendum, it was only because the Tory's had been banging on about it and it had become an election issue.

Regarding Corbyn, he has scorn poured on him every day by the tabloids and is subject to an endemic anti socialist rhetoric throughout the whole media establishment. Whoever was the leader of the Labour Party would be subject to this bias. Unless it was still under the control of New Labour, someone like Blair, or David Milliband. But New Labour was Tory Light, it was Tory in all but name and was acceptable to be backed by The Sun newspaper, a right wing rag.

We wouldn't. It's the Scots and N Irish who may force the situation..

Johnson's deal takes us there, or do you think it doesn't?

As for an independent East Anglia. That includes me too! but it's one of the most right-wing parts of the country isn't it? - save for Cambridge and Ipswich. So independence would presumably of the hard-Brexit variety if voted for here.

In an ideal world, (as you suggested)

My point was what are we doing considering such a thing? Because of infighting in the Tory party caused by the fanaticism of the far right, along with a drip feeding of a similar ideology through the media by wealthy right wing Tory backing media barons.

Take those two small groups of people out of the equation and none of this Brexit psychodrama would have happened and everyone would have carried on as normal living in peace and harmony with our neighbours.

Rather like I say, in an ideal world, ( or a good deal with the EU) an independent England is an interesting concept. Although I don't see what reason there would be to go in that direction. I quite like the idea of an independent East Anglia, I'm not going to push for it though, why would I.

In the real world though we are in a mess, due to government incompetence and in fighting. Why would we go down a route leading to an independent England*? To save face for the Conservative Party? As I say in my last but one post, if the Conservative party is broke, why fix the country, surely one should fix the Conservative party instead.

If Johnson wins a majority, as David Gauke said the other day, it would be bad for the country. Again I could list the issues, but surely it only takes a little thought.

* not to mention all the other changes envisioned in a Tory Brexit.

What have the examples you give got in common?

War and/or deep division between groups with all the animosity which is found in human nature.

I'm surprised you are not acknowledging the difficulties that would be faced. I shouldn't need to spell it out( although I find it common place amongst leavers, that they don't think of the consequences).

The kind of future envisioned by the government is to have quite rapid divergence in regulations, standards and tariffs. So it would require hard borders on every border around England. As a consequence of this divergence and the inevitable difficulties in negotiating future arrangements there would be great pressure to a open up new trade routes with other countries who are not in the EU, such as America, China, India. They would by that point be poised like vultures around a carcass.

This is not to mention the animosity between the people of these islands after they have been shafted by the clown in Downing Street.

I have barely started, but don't have much time now. It is an interesting subject though and probably should be considered here.

Do you mean 'the end of the union'? And that that's a good thing?

Yes the end of the union and that it would be a bad thing. Principly for England, it would certainly precipitate unification in Ireland and possibly Wales, but certainly Scotland. Where does that leave England? I suggest in a very vulnerable and exposed position in all regards. And why would we go down that route? Because the Conservative party lost touch with reality, I don't think that is a good enough reason. Better to ditch the Conservatives and preserve the Union and get back to some semblance of normality and statesmanship in our government.

I think a Tory majority and leaving the EU would certainly add to pressure for a 2nd indie ref, but would the Tories give in to it?

Yes, having that clown (Johnson) in Downing Street would certainly add to the pressure. The government would not be able to prevent it if the demand was clear. I don't think many English people realise the extent of the damage done to relations ( don't mention Johnson's relations) with the Scott's by this farce of a government. Cameron did a good job in shoring up the Union with the Scottish referendum. I think independence had been pushed into the long grass for a generation. But now that has all been kyboshed and the Scott's treated with contempt. Rather like the contempt with with the Irish have been treated. It really is remarkable what damage can be done when a political party goes wrong.

And the Union.( I don't mean it's a good thing. But the best way to prevent Scotland leaving is a Labour coalition)

Yes, very interesting. Putin should take care with Europe because a large revenue stream comes from the gas pipeline to Europe. As far as I know most of the wealth in Russia comes from fossil fuels. If this falls he will be in trouble.

Given the withdrawal deal will be signed, sealed and delivered by then, what exactly is the cliff edge at the end of 2020? Is it just no trade deal - so a fallback to WTO terms? If so, wouldn't this self-evidently be an own goal ? Ok we'd stop paying the EU members fees and taking EU laws too, but would exporters settle for that ? I'm not sure where the balance of pros and cons is at that stage..

Yes, I'm not sure what would happen at that point, David Gauke described it as moving to world trade rules, but many commentators, including well informed ones describe it as a cliff edge.
Regardless of just what would be involved, it would be just as febrile as the March 31st, or October 31st, with just as much uncertainty as we have now, so businesses will still suffer, public services will still be in crisis, important legislation would be kicked into the long grass, or not brought forward, just as over the last two years.

Everyone who knows what is involved in the next stage of negotiations says it will be at the very least 3 years to thrash out something that can be agreed on for going forward. But this cliff edge is in one year. Johnson's shambles of a government doesn't inspire me with confidence about this. Also we shouldn't be under any illusions about the fact that Johnson has secured the support of the ERG and a number of Brexit party supporters on the promise that he will drag his feet during the negotiations so that the cliff edge happens at the end of that period.

So it's more of the same, more division, more uncertainty, we will probably go into recession and Scotland will be set to leave in short order. There will be major crisis in the NHS and other public services, far worse than the crisis which is emerging right now.

Happy days, still at least we will be respecting democracy, because if we don't democracy is broken. The people voted to leave, so we must leave, why did we vote to leave? Because we wanted to leave, so we must leave, do or die, get over it you remoaners (not).