There's a massive gap in the centre ground for non ideological voters and the Lib Dems are trying to fill it. Good.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
There's a massive gap in the centre ground for non ideological voters and the Lib Dems are trying to fill it. Good.
He is trying to carve off pro-Brexit Labour voters with a mix of nationalism and higher spending
One is a voting intention based on some recent YouGov polls, the other are the result of the past election. It's quite a simple concept really
So are they going to constantly update the local voters on you gov polling ? Also they've removed the voting percentage of that poll and feck around with the bar chart sizes.One is a voting intention based on some recent YouGov polls, the other are the result of the past election. It's quite a simple concept really
A bit mad they are allowed to do this.
Last edited:
Of course they won't and it's not mad at all. It's standard electioneering, taking a snapshot of a positive poll and using it as part of your campaign. It's pretty common practice. This graph is based on a poll that put lib dems at 31%, Tories at 30% and Labour at 23%, for the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. The one Chuka is contesting
Er....yeah I know I literally posted the tweet saying this ? But the lib dem flyer doesn't mentioned the percentages and the bar charts aren't the same as the ones in the tweet(As I mentioned in my other post).
Also whats your feelings on big red buses ?
Last edited:
Yeah well, after you edited your post and not after I had started responding. So naturally I would explain where the graphs come from, no reason for you to get sarcy over it.
The lack of numbers and graph distortion is stretching the truth, but that's not what was mentioned in the first tweet and prompted my response. The tweet you linked was merely juxtaposing the poll results with the 2017 election results, which is pointless. I would certainly prefer they show the figures as they did in the tweet of your second post. Not a fan of stretching the truth myself, though that too is common practice in electioneering.
On what I think about pledges on big red buses... again that was stretching the truth. That was indeed close to the value bill, it just didn't allow for the abatements. They could have gone for £250m (which was the correct value) and given the ideological stance of Brexiteers which says that any money sent to the EU is money wasted that we get nothing from, I don't really think it would have made any difference.
Either way it's clear that in Westminster a vote for Labour is a vote to let the Tories in. Probably in lots of other places too.
Wat absolute bullshit, Labour got nearly 15,000 votes last time around, the Lib Dems got nearly 4300. Considering the majority of people tend to vote the same way most of the time do you even know wht kind of swing is requird for Chuka to even come second let alone win.
Chuka will hand Labour the win in Westminster because he will win votes from the Tories.
They've almost exclusively scooped up fairly right-wing leaning Labour MPs who're opposed to Corbyn though - anyone who was in Change UK can't really be deemed centre-left considering the party was literally led by an ex-Tory. The idea they're becoming a broad church indicates they're receptive to left-wing views as strong as the right-wing views espoused by some of their new ex-Tory MPs - that's not really the case though.
Labour got around 40% of the vote last time; the Lib Dems got below 10% if I remember correctly. Current polling projections have Labour losing around 15% of their vote on average and the Lib Dems generally at 2-3 times what they were at in 2017. If you apply those nationwide changes to Westminster constituency then it's absolutely in-play. Really has to be remembered that on current polling the Lib Dems are going from getting around a fifth of the vote Labour did in 2017 to almost equalling them. Although whether it's sustainable for them is another matter.
Although dodgy Lib Dem graphs can get fecked. Much as it's a funny meme and all, it's literally a form of lying to the public. If you're going to do bar graphs do them right. Otherwise the Electoral Commission etc should be getting involved.
I find this very bizarre, logic i must admit.
In what sense? You had fairly heavily pro-austerity Tories joining Labour MPs who had left the party because - for the most part - they felt it was too left-wing. People on the centre-left/left can undoubtedly work with Tory MPs on issues where cooperation is needed and beneficial, but if you're joining an actual political party that's filled with Tories, and which is led by an ex-Tory who agrees with Tory economic policy for the most part, then how can you, in any way, claim to be left-wing or centre-left? It's fairly obvious at that point you're not. Hell, Chuka and co even had the option of defecting to the Lib Dems back in February - they instead opted to join a party filled with Tory MPs, after years of being frustrated at being called Red Tories.
There has always been a further left than the Labour Party. So how can anyone who ever voted Labour claim to be left wing when they didn't join the Socialist Workers Party instead? You could reverse the question and ask why would anyone who believes the mainstream Labour Party is too right wing for them, ever join it in the first place?
We know why though, they couldn't get elected when they stood on their own policies in their own distinct party.
So they move into the mainstream Labour party, change that party and its policies beyond recognition and then claim everyone who won't vote for it is a Tory. That is a poor analysis based on party name recognition not policy or logic.
We are where we are and now and we will test whether politics has changed or not at the next election.The previous evidence and thinking is that extreme left wing policies well beyond the mainstream don't win majorities.
Things have changed and it might be that the old thinking is wrong but if Labour lose the next election it isn't because all the old Labour voters were Tories all along but just didn't know they were, it will be because the Labour Party has become the socialist workers party.
And here's voter suppression coming to the uk.
I actually have no issue with that... It's always struck me as a but strange that genuinely knowing somebody's name and address is seen as enough evidence to vote
I would hope though that it's made very clear what people need and I would actually really have hoped they could have looked more into secure online voting
The first steps along this path always sound reasonable, the problem with this is the people it excludes from voting, i.e. those with drivers licences or passports, are overwhelmingly the most vulnerable in society, minorities, the poor, the underprivalidged or the young, so basically the voters of the Tories opponents.
Apart from the fairness part of it there is no evidence whatsoever that it is required.
Yeah try being poor for a while, you might change your mind.
I'm pretty sure your in the top 10% of world earners.... Pot kettle etc
Germany Holland France Norway Sweden all seem to manage voter ID without being totalitarian unfair societies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws
I personally would prefer compulsory voting with a safe internet option (government gateway possibly)... With the caveat there is a none of the above option ... Trust me when none of the above scores most then you might actually get political parties try to engage with the huge amount of people who feel detached from the process system
ID cards are free in France, how does that exclude the poor?
Assuming alongside this they remove fees for passport application/renewal and provide assistance/support in the application process for barriers that inhibit individuals in applying, school students having full in-school support/workshop days for application, massively increase passport office staff... Assuming all of that, it's still a dreadful idea.a
Great! That's the problem of the British poor lacking ID to vote in elections in Britain solved.
If this general election results in a government not being able to take a decision one way or another for Brexit, it would be a complete waste of time. I hope that whoever is voted in will be able to make a final decision if you're staying or you're leaving. The current confusion is creating more harm than a decision either way would and it's affecting the whole of Europe.
What's the objection with having ID cards to prove who you are, unless you've got something to hide. Sorry don't get your point.
ID isn’t free in Britain, Paul.
It's a zero sum game though.
The number of people who actually commit election fraud is tiny compared to the amount of people who would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement.
2017 statistics:
Now compare that to the estimated 3.5 million people in the UK who don't have photo IDs.
Despite what people might suggest, an Election has the singular objective of providing a figure which accurately represents the wishes of the nation. Not "who also have a photo ID" or "who might also be close to their voting station during University term time". So in terms of pure quality of data, you get a much better results with the very low risk of voter fraud than you do with the very high risk of voter suppression. Especially when you consider that voter fraud is a risk to all parties indiscriminate of their demographics whereas methods of voter suppression are inherently discriminate against certain groups (usually poor/students/immigrants) and as such are a much greater risk to the integrity of an election as it's likely to skew the results considerably.
But it could be free if the UK had the same system as France. Id cards are also used as cheque guarantees and for travel purposes between EU countries.
Free ID cards aren't free, they're government funded. Willing to commit to that kind of spending to back up this policy of requiring ID?
We also tried ID cards in the country. Take up was so great they scrapped it, know why? Because you had to pay for them.
Didn't know you were into Mao. But yes I'm completely owned, as I'm not a refugee from Libya. Aren't you a retired business owner who has put thousands of pounds in the Labour Party ?(You've done far more for socialism than I ever have, cheers)We really aren't the same at all.
Back on topic, there is no evidence of illegal voting in the UK, this is simply a tool to stop poor working class people from voting. Really is as simply as that.
Who had to pay for them? Taxpayers, if you're poor they wouldn't be paying tax would they?
Hummm I'm about 30 years off retirement
Didn't know you were into Mao. But yes I'm completely owned, as I'm not a refugee from Libya. Aren't you a retired business owner who has put thousands of pounds in the Labour Party ?(You've done far more for socialism than I ever have, cheers)We really aren't the same at all.
And over 100k over the years
As for Mao I've lived and had some of my education in China so unsurprisingly I have some familiarity with Mao .... My wife is Chinese as well and certainly there are many of my in-laws who have first hand knowledge of the Mao years ...
I've lived and worked in a numbe of developing countries.... Indeed developing those countries in actually a key part of my job.... So I suspect I've seen poverty at levels that are quite impactful .... But certainly I like to look at things on a world wide basis and if you earn over £11000 then hey your in the top 10% of world earners so perhaps be don't so high and mighty throwing round being rich as an insult... Or at least without realising your insulting yourself
All those countries have a national identity card and so requiring one for voting doesn't exclude anyone from the process.
I actually quite like the idea of compsory voting, however I don't see how a Web based system could ever be secured against fraud.
Mate you've given over 100k to the Labour Party, again cheers but your loaded(This isn't a insult but just a fact,). Also I wasn't trying to be all 'mighty' but stating that your view on this policy would be different if you felt the effects. No amount of I've seen 'real poverty' is going to get you out of this.
Really how is this policy not voter suppression, aimed at stopping poor working class people from voting ?
Last edited:
Voter ID sounds fine in principle but literally all the evidence shows it'd just be a policy to boost the Tory vote because lots of people ultimately don't have photo ID.
So where is the funding coming from? Added taxes? Reducing existing budgets?
Utterly pointless policy designed to do one thing and one thing only.
If it was from tax then the poor wouldn't be paying for it if they are not paying tax.
I know people in Britain don't pay much tax and don't like paying tax and then complain about the poor services.
Ahhh. So you're a bad faith actor. Didn't realise, sorry. Carry on.