UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Imperializt Russia]

Bollocks to Brexit is pretty plainly empty electioneering.

It's neither feasible not what anyone, aside from a particularly rabid pro-Remain lobby, actually want.
As rabidly pro-Remain as I am, "cancelling Brexit" doesn't fix anything, the system is still broken.

It also quite openly ignores doing something about why areas would vote Brexit - because Swinson has time and again voted in favour of policies that further deprivation of areas.

Honestly, that's how it should've been played from the beginning. "OK, people want to leave at the moment. Let's try to find out why and what we can do to fix that, then see if that solves it."

I've been saying it since 2016.

Cameron was too much of a spoiled kid taking his ball home with him and the Tories have just been passing around the poisoned chalice and getting embarrassed at the less-important elections by TWO protest parties led by the same impudent toadman.

[SD_Film Artists]

Lib Dems: "Blollocks to Brexit!"

Corbyn: "eer we may have a public vote after a successful election but we'll try to find a Brexit deal just as long as it doesn't come in blue."

Bollocks to Brexit is pretty plainly empty electioneering.

The Lib Dems have been consistently anti-Brexit since 2016. How us it "empty"?

It's neither feasible not what anyone, aside from a particularly rabid pro-Remain lobby, actually want.
As rabidly pro-Remain as I am, "cancelling Brexit" doesn't fix anything, the system is still broken.

If their position isn't popular then how have they been winning in local and by-elections? I'm not saying they'll sweep into No.10 but they're clearly doing something right.

It also quite openly ignores doing something about why areas would vote Brexit - because Swinson has time and again voted in favour of policies that further deprivation of areas.

The Lib Dems aren't a single-issue party, I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive; unless you're trying to say that Jo Swinson is somehow responsible for Workington Man so she has to placate that group even if said placation (voting for Brexit) is counterproductive for all involved.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm going to print this out and put it on my bathroom wall.

Please tell me that it's going to be in a multi-colour font surrounded by unicorns and rainbows.

That's very off-brand. Lions and bulldogs in red, white and blue is the house style.

[The Archregimancy]

Please tell me that it's going to be in a multi-colour font surrounded by unicorns and rainbows.

That's very off-brand. Lions and bulldogs in red, white and blue is the house style.

Why do you hate the Union?

Unicorns obviously represent Scotland, while rainbows represent where Northern Irish leprechauns hide the magical money tree planted somewhere near DUP headquarters. The multi-coloured font would have been in green, red, white, and yellow to represent a Welsh flag garlanded with daffodils.

[Neu Leonstein]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-election

I guess there's always emigration. At least for a couple more months.

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm going to print this out and put it on my bathroom wall.

Please tell me that it's going to be in a multi-colour font surrounded by unicorns and rainbows.

<3
Live
<3
Laugh
<3
Litigate

[Vassenor]

We've got another cover up.

Fury as decision on police inquiry into PM shelved until after election

So the investigation around Johnson and Acuri has been shelved until after the election, apparently just to stop him from looking bad during the campaign.

[The Archregimancy]

Let's have a light-hearted election moment.

The following anecdote was shared by a former Labour Party activist on a LibDem discussion board:

I hope [LibDem] information on voting intentions is better than the Labour Party’s. Especially when it comes to giving lifts to voters on polling day. I remember the following conversation from a few years ago:

Me: Thanks for turning out to vote Labour.

Elderly gentleman: Yes I always like to vote for Mr Winterton.

Me: But he’s the Conservative candidate!

Elderly gentleman: Is he really?

Me: I have two Labour posters stuck on the side on my car!

Elderly gentleman: Would you like me to get out?

Me: No never mind! I don’t think it will make any difference anyway!

And then this mildly amusing exchange between three other thread contributors over how to push leaflets through letterboxes while canvassing:

When out canvassing or putting leaflets through letter boxes, use a ruler to push them through the letter box, especially if there is an angry dog the other side of the door. It saves a trip to A and E.

-----------

Me: “Darling, I’m home!”
Wife: “Why has my fish slice got teeth marks on it?”
Me: “I’ve just been delivering leaflets for the Lib Dems.”
Wife: (Puzzled silence).

-----------

You can pick up fish slices at Wilko for £2.50. By the way, I tried spatulas (and rulers) but they are so straight that they are easy to lose by pushing all the way through a letter box.

I did once ring the bell on a door and asked the resident “Can I have my spatula back please?”. It was was 10:30am on a Saturday so the resident looked a bit bemused in his dressing gown.

[SD_Film Artists]

We've got another cover up.

Fury as decision on police inquiry into PM shelved until after election

So the investigation around Johnson and Acuri has been shelved until after the election, apparently just to stop him from looking bad during the campaign.

While it's nice to see that you're increasing the thought put into your posts, I'm still waiting to hear how you think Labour is justified in expecting the LD-Green-Plaid's full cooperation while giving nothing in return; ie wanting to be in the group while at the same time refusing to join the group. In a way, it's actually symbolic of Brexit- though at least with Brexit there are some reasonable concessions that the EU could (but haven't) given to Britain, whereas Labour is just straight up freeloading.

[Vassenor]

We've got another cover up.

Fury as decision on police inquiry into PM shelved until after election

So the investigation around Johnson and Acuri has been shelved until after the election, apparently just to stop him from looking bad during the campaign.

While it's nice to see that you're increasing the thought put into your posts, I'm still waiting to hear how you think Labour is justified in expecting the LD-Green-Plaid's full cooperation while giving nothing in return; ie wanting to be in the group while at the same time refusing to join the group. In a way, it's actually symbolic of Brexit.

And I'm waiting for you to explain how running candidates against explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs won't dilute the pro-Remain voice in parliament by splitting the pro-Remain vote.

[SD_Film Artists]

While it's nice to see that you're increasing the thought put into your posts, I'm still waiting to hear how you think Labour is justified in expecting the LD-Green-Plaid's full cooperation while giving nothing in return; ie wanting to be in the group while at the same time refusing to join the group. In a way, it's actually symbolic of Brexit.

And I'm waiting for you to explain how running candidates against explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs won't dilute the pro-Remain voice in parliament by splitting the pro-Remain vote.

1. Labour decided to play that game when they refused to join the group. The door was (and maybe still is?) very much open to them.
2. Remain MPs in a more-or-less Brexit party. The only reason why they were even invited to the group is because they're not the Tories.

[Vassenor]

And I'm waiting for you to explain how running candidates against explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs won't dilute the pro-Remain voice in parliament by splitting the pro-Remain vote.

1. Labour decided to play that game when they refused to join the group. The door was (and maybe still is?) very much open to them.
2. Remain MPs in a more-or-less Brexit party. The only reason why they were even invited to the group is because they're not the Tories.

So it's OK to screw over your own objectives out of tribalism as long as it's the LDs doing it?

And so more-or-less Brexit that the entire leadership is willing to throw down behind Remain?

[The Archregimancy]

While it's nice to see that you're increasing the thought put into your posts, I'm still waiting to hear how you think Labour is justified in expecting the LD-Green-Plaid's full cooperation while giving nothing in return; ie wanting to be in the group while at the same time refusing to join the group. In a way, it's actually symbolic of Brexit.

And I'm waiting for you to explain how running candidates against explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs won't dilute the pro-Remain voice in parliament by splitting the pro-Remain vote.

You've yet to demonstrate to us that these elusive pro-remain Labour MPs will be harmed by Unite to Remain; you've only given vague statements that some unspecified members of the latter group say it might hurt them.

You have the ability to do the legwork to prove your case. First of all, this post gives you all the information you need:

viewtopic.php?p=36411269#p36411269

You can then identify constituencies in the list of 60 Unite to Remain seats that have a sitting member of Labour's pro-remain group, check that MP's current majority to see if Unite to Remain will actually harm them, and then provide us with a list of which pro-remain Labour MPs you think are going to be most impacted.

So you can perhaps come back to us once you actually have some solid basis for your point rather than vague assertions, and we can then have something to discuss.



And it bears repeating that Labour is not a remain party.

These 'explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs' have already tried to get Labour to adopt a clear pro-remain policy; they have also evidently failed.

They have, I would think, only three obvious chances now of further influencing Labour to a pro-Remain policy; none of them seem particularly likely, though there are degrees of unlikelihood between them.

1) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn remains as leader, and they choose to rebel against the party whip; there is no evidence so far that this is likely to happen.

2) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn steps down as leader, and they try to influence the leadership election into choosing an unambiguously pro-remain leader who will fight Tory attempts to leave on Johnson's schedule. While this is the least unlikely of the three scenarios, it would be a brave Remainer who placed their trust in this being the outcome of the resulting Labour leadership election.

3) Labour wins the election (as unlikely as that seems), negotiates its own deal, and the pro-Remain MPs are then instrumental in the party's decision to recommend against the deal it has negotiated, and then recommend a vote to reject the deal in the subsequent referendum - and the other option available in that referendum is to remain. Given that Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister in this scenario, this seems even more unlikely.

Note that I have deliberately left out any scenario Labour lose the election; here it doesn't matter who Labour choose as their next leader as Johnson would presumably be able to pass through his Brexit deal regardless.


You might perhaps disagree; but I would be grateful if, in any reply, you would consider giving us the benefit of a similarly detailed analysis.


Edit:

And so more-or-less Brexit that the entire leadership is willing to throw down behind Remain?

While a much better source than most of the ones you use, I think you'll find - if you care to read the article again - that the above link is not as supportive of the point you're trying to make as you think it is.

Even if we get past that the article itself states that the Labour Party denies the story, if the entire leadership is indeed 'willing to throw down behind Remain', it begs the obvious question of why they haven't then done so. It doesn't make the current historically unpopular leadership look any more competent if they've all decided to reject what they believe in in favour of taking advice from senior advisers.

[SD_Film Artists]

1. Labour decided to play that game when they refused to join the group. The door was (and maybe still is?) very much open to them.
2. Remain MPs in a more-or-less Brexit party. The only reason why they were even invited to the group is because they're not the Tories.

So it's OK to screw over your own objectives out of tribalism as long as it's the LDs doing it?

And so more-or-less Brexit that the entire leadership is willing to throw down behind Remain?

Pact, not just LD. More to the point, they're just sick and tired of Labour always being willing to receive but never to give.

That story is denied by Labour and I can see why; it's basically saying that Labour have secretly been even half as pro-remain as Jo Swinson but before Corbyn could say "Bollocks to Brexit" (has he's obviously been a passionate anti-brexit activist ) he and the rest of the party were apparently silenced by a single advisor. Cool.

[Neu Leonstein]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ember-2019

The "3 million" figure was always an estimate. Applications for settled status are hard data - though of course they exclude a) those who haven't applied yet, b) the Irish, c) anyone who applies for citizenship instead and d) anyone who went "actually, fuck this, I'm out of here" (including yours truly, of course).

Not that anyone here would care, but the stories of people getting refused settled status due to trivialities or clerical errors are mounting too, of course. Contrary to what they claimed during the negotiations, the UK government has clearly advised case workers to find reasons for rejection, rather than the other way around.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

More candidates standing down
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50365354

Starting to wonder if I will recognise any of the MP's names after the general election, and where the parties are managing to get enough good replacement candidates.

[Chan Island]

And I'm waiting for you to explain how running candidates against explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs won't dilute the pro-Remain voice in parliament by splitting the pro-Remain vote.

You've yet to demonstrate to us that these elusive pro-remain Labour MPs will be harmed by Unite to Remain; you've only given vague statements that some unspecified members of the latter group say it might hurt them.

You have the ability to do the legwork to prove your case. First of all, this post gives you all the information you need:

viewtopic.php?p=36411269#p36411269

You can then identify constituencies in the list of 60 Unite to Remain seats that have a sitting member of Labour's pro-remain group, check that MP's current majority to see if Unite to Remain will actually harm them, and then provide us with a list of which pro-remain Labour MPs you think are going to be most impacted.

So you can perhaps come back to us once you actually have some solid basis for your point rather than vague assertions, and we can then have something to discuss.

And it bears repeating that Labour is not a remain party.

These 'explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs' have already tried to get Labour to adopt a clear pro-remain policy; they have also evidently failed.

They have, I would think, only three obvious chances now of further influencing Labour to a pro-Remain policy; none of them seem particularly likely, though there are degrees of unlikelihood between them.

1) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn remains as leader, and they choose to rebel against the party whip; there is no evidence so far that this is likely to happen.

2) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn steps down as leader, and they try to influence the leadership election into choosing an unambiguously pro-remain leader who will fight Tory attempts to leave on Johnson's schedule. While this is the least unlikely of the three scenarios, it would be a brave Remainer who placed their trust in this being the outcome of the resulting Labour leadership election.

3) Labour wins the election (as unlikely as that seems), negotiates its own deal, and the pro-Remain MPs are then instrumental in the party's decision to recommend against the deal it has negotiated, and then recommend a vote to reject the deal in the subsequent referendum - and the other option available in that referendum is to remain. Given that Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister in this scenario, this seems even more unlikely.

Note that I have deliberately left out any scenario Labour lose the election; here it doesn't matter who Labour choose as their next leader as Johnson would presumably be able to pass through his Brexit deal regardless.


You might perhaps disagree; but I would be grateful if, in any reply, you would consider giving us the benefit of a similarly detailed analysis.


Edit:

And so more-or-less Brexit that the entire leadership is willing to throw down behind Remain?

While a much better source than most of the ones you use, I think you'll find - if you care to read the article again - that the above link is not as supportive of the point you're trying to make as you think it is.

Even if we get past that the article itself states that the Labour Party denies the story, if the entire leadership is indeed 'willing to throw down behind Remain', it begs the obvious question of why they haven't then done so. It doesn't make the current historically unpopular leadership look any more competent if they've all decided to reject what they believe in in favour of taking advice from senior advisers.

Well, one very simple one that can be put forward is the case of Rosie Duffield in Canterbury.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury ... on-215443/

Rosie is the Labour MP of that Kent seat, is one of the most fervent remainers in the Labour party and is sitting on a majority of 187. That 187 majority was due to Lib Dems, Greens and Tory remainers joining forces to support her in ousting the previous, rabidly pro-Brexit Tory who was there. A rabidly pro-Brexit Tory who had been there safely for decades, and the seat was incredibly safe for the conservatives throughout virtually all time before then. The Conservatives are throwing the kitchen sink to get their candidate elected in the place, with a good chance of succeeding.

Yet the Lib Dems are running a candidate in Canterbury. And are actively campaigning for that candidate online and on the streets.

The cruel mathematics of FTPT make this a very unwise decision for anybody who wishes to advance the overall cause of remaining in the European Union... as well as a myriad of other liberal and left causes.

I also have to note that the referendum policy of the Labour was essentially the Liberal Democrat one until not all that long ago. It's a second referendum, with one choice being remain, and the other being a deal that Corbyn will have negotiated. If, as you assert, it will just be a deal campaigned against by the Labour party, then you have even less to worry about than ever!

Ironically enough, Duffield is very pro-electoral reform too. Which means that it makes even less sense for the Liberals to run against her in such a tight seat.

For now just bringing that one up because that's both my own constituency and also a very egregious individual example.

[The Archregimancy]

You've yet to demonstrate to us that these elusive pro-remain Labour MPs will be harmed by Unite to Remain; you've only given vague statements that some unspecified members of the latter group say it might hurt them.

You have the ability to do the legwork to prove your case. First of all, this post gives you all the information you need:

viewtopic.php?p=36411269#p36411269

You can then identify constituencies in the list of 60 Unite to Remain seats that have a sitting member of Labour's pro-remain group, check that MP's current majority to see if Unite to Remain will actually harm them, and then provide us with a list of which pro-remain Labour MPs you think are going to be most impacted.

So you can perhaps come back to us once you actually have some solid basis for your point rather than vague assertions, and we can then have something to discuss.

And it bears repeating that Labour is not a remain party.

These 'explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs' have already tried to get Labour to adopt a clear pro-remain policy; they have also evidently failed.

They have, I would think, only three obvious chances now of further influencing Labour to a pro-Remain policy; none of them seem particularly likely, though there are degrees of unlikelihood between them.

1) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn remains as leader, and they choose to rebel against the party whip; there is no evidence so far that this is likely to happen.

2) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn steps down as leader, and they try to influence the leadership election into choosing an unambiguously pro-remain leader who will fight Tory attempts to leave on Johnson's schedule. While this is the least unlikely of the three scenarios, it would be a brave Remainer who placed their trust in this being the outcome of the resulting Labour leadership election.

3) Labour wins the election (as unlikely as that seems), negotiates its own deal, and the pro-Remain MPs are then instrumental in the party's decision to recommend against the deal it has negotiated, and then recommend a vote to reject the deal in the subsequent referendum - and the other option available in that referendum is to remain. Given that Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister in this scenario, this seems even more unlikely.

Note that I have deliberately left out any scenario Labour lose the election; here it doesn't matter who Labour choose as their next leader as Johnson would presumably be able to pass through his Brexit deal regardless.


You might perhaps disagree; but I would be grateful if, in any reply, you would consider giving us the benefit of a similarly detailed analysis.


Edit:



While a much better source than most of the ones you use, I think you'll find - if you care to read the article again - that the above link is not as supportive of the point you're trying to make as you think it is.

Even if we get past that the article itself states that the Labour Party denies the story, if the entire leadership is indeed 'willing to throw down behind Remain', it begs the obvious question of why they haven't then done so. It doesn't make the current historically unpopular leadership look any more competent if they've all decided to reject what they believe in in favour of taking advice from senior advisers.

Well, one very simple one that can be put forward is the case of Rosie Duffield in Canterbury.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury ... on-215443/

Rosie is the Labour MP of that Kent seat, is one of the most fervent remainers in the Labour party and is sitting on a majority of 187. That 187 majority was due to Lib Dems, Greens and Tory remainers joining forces to support her in ousting the previous, rabidly pro-Brexit Tory who was there. A rabidly pro-Brexit Tory who had been there safely for decades, and the seat was incredibly safe for the conservatives throughout virtually all time before then. The Conservatives are throwing the kitchen sink to get their candidate elected in the place, with a good chance of succeeding.

Canterbury is not covered by the Unite to Remain deal. Both the LibDems and the Greens are running candidates in the constituency.

Vassenor's specific contention is that Unite to Remain harms pro-Remain Labour candidates. That's not the situation with Rosie Duffield.

It's entirely possible that Ms Duffield will lose her ultra-marginal seat, and it may well be that some will choose to blame the LibDems and the Greens should she lose. But that loss will not be a direct result of Unite to Remain, which is the specific example under discussion here. So no, that example doesn't prove Vassenor's point.

It's also possible, mind, that the presence of a Brexit Party candidate in Canterbury will split the Leave vote, handing the seat to Labour; we won't know until the morning of the 13th of December.


And please, let's not try to do Vassenor's work for her. She's more than capable of proving her point herself if she wants to put the effort in.

[Vassenor]

You've yet to demonstrate to us that these elusive pro-remain Labour MPs will be harmed by Unite to Remain; you've only given vague statements that some unspecified members of the latter group say it might hurt them.

You have the ability to do the legwork to prove your case. First of all, this post gives you all the information you need:

viewtopic.php?p=36411269#p36411269

You can then identify constituencies in the list of 60 Unite to Remain seats that have a sitting member of Labour's pro-remain group, check that MP's current majority to see if Unite to Remain will actually harm them, and then provide us with a list of which pro-remain Labour MPs you think are going to be most impacted.

So you can perhaps come back to us once you actually have some solid basis for your point rather than vague assertions, and we can then have something to discuss.

And it bears repeating that Labour is not a remain party.

These 'explicitly pro-remain Labour MPs' have already tried to get Labour to adopt a clear pro-remain policy; they have also evidently failed.

They have, I would think, only three obvious chances now of further influencing Labour to a pro-Remain policy; none of them seem particularly likely, though there are degrees of unlikelihood between them.

1) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn remains as leader, and they choose to rebel against the party whip; there is no evidence so far that this is likely to happen.

2) There is a hung parliament, Corbyn steps down as leader, and they try to influence the leadership election into choosing an unambiguously pro-remain leader who will fight Tory attempts to leave on Johnson's schedule. While this is the least unlikely of the three scenarios, it would be a brave Remainer who placed their trust in this being the outcome of the resulting Labour leadership election.

3) Labour wins the election (as unlikely as that seems), negotiates its own deal, and the pro-Remain MPs are then instrumental in the party's decision to recommend against the deal it has negotiated, and then recommend a vote to reject the deal in the subsequent referendum - and the other option available in that referendum is to remain. Given that Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister in this scenario, this seems even more unlikely.

Note that I have deliberately left out any scenario Labour lose the election; here it doesn't matter who Labour choose as their next leader as Johnson would presumably be able to pass through his Brexit deal regardless.


You might perhaps disagree; but I would be grateful if, in any reply, you would consider giving us the benefit of a similarly detailed analysis.


Edit:



While a much better source than most of the ones you use, I think you'll find - if you care to read the article again - that the above link is not as supportive of the point you're trying to make as you think it is.

Even if we get past that the article itself states that the Labour Party denies the story, if the entire leadership is indeed 'willing to throw down behind Remain', it begs the obvious question of why they haven't then done so. It doesn't make the current historically unpopular leadership look any more competent if they've all decided to reject what they believe in in favour of taking advice from senior advisers.

Well, one very simple one that can be put forward is the case of Rosie Duffield in Canterbury.

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury ... on-215443/

Rosie is the Labour MP of that Kent seat, is one of the most fervent remainers in the Labour party and is sitting on a majority of 187. That 187 majority was due to Lib Dems, Greens and Tory remainers joining forces to support her in ousting the previous, rabidly pro-Brexit Tory who was there. A rabidly pro-Brexit Tory who had been there safely for decades, and the seat was incredibly safe for the conservatives throughout virtually all time before then. The Conservatives are throwing the kitchen sink to get their candidate elected in the place, with a good chance of succeeding.

Yet the Lib Dems are running a candidate in Canterbury. And are actively campaigning for that candidate online and on the streets.

The cruel mathematics of FTPT make this a very unwise decision for anybody who wishes to advance the overall cause of remaining in the European Union... as well as a myriad of other liberal and left causes.

I also have to note that the referendum policy of the Labour was essentially the Liberal Democrat one until not all that long ago. It's a second referendum, with one choice being remain, and the other being a deal that Corbyn will have negotiated. If, as you assert, it will just be a deal campaigned against by the Labour party, then you have even less to worry about than ever!

Ironically enough, Duffield is very pro-electoral reform too. Which means that it makes even less sense for the Liberals to run against her in such a tight seat.

For now just bringing that one up because that's both my own constituency and also a very egregious individual example.

In fact, of the 13 Labour-held seats being targeted by the Alliance, 10 of them returned a pro-Remain Labour MP at the last election, some of them with margins thin enough that split opposition voting becomes a factor - for example, Penistone and Stocksbridge was won by a margin of just 1,322, with the Liberal vote at ~2000, and the MP for Stroud, who called Brexit “one of the biggest domestic policy disasters this country has known”, is at risk with a majority of just 687 with a combined Liberal / Green vote of 3,476. Eight of those targeted have already signed on to the Remain Labour caucus mentioned before.

The MPs in Bristol West, Dulwich and West Norwood and two Exeter constituencies are being targeted despite the fact they voted against even triggering Article 50 in the first place, with the MPs for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and York Central also voting against A50 but not signing the RL pledge, and are on the targets list too.

And this is without getting into Conservative candidates holding narrow margins who could be unseated were this split vote risk not a factor, such as in Finchley and Golders Green, where another signatory to the Remain Labour pledge is seeking to overturn the incumbent pro-Leave Conservative's 1600 vote majority.

This is where the blind tribalism argument is coming from - rather than looking at whether the individual MP in question supports what you're trying to achieve, you're just looking at their affiliation and deciding they need to go on that basis alone.

[The Archregimancy]

In fact, of the 13 Labour-held seats being targeted by the Alliance, 10 of them returned a pro-Remain Labour MP at the last election, some of them with margins thin enough that split opposition voting becomes a factor - for example, Penistone and Stocksbridge was won by a margin of just 1,322, with the Liberal vote at ~2000, and the MP for Stroud, who called Brexit “one of the biggest domestic policy disasters this country has known”, is at risk with a majority of just 687 with a combined Liberal / Green vote of 3,476. Eight of those targeted have already signed on to the Remain Labour caucus mentioned before.

The MPs in Bristol West, Dulwich and West Norwood and two Exeter constituencies are being targeted despite the fact they voted against even triggering Article 50 in the first place, with the MPs for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and York Central also voting against A50 but not signing the RL pledge, and are on the targets list too.

And this is without getting into Conservative candidates holding narrow margins who could be unseated were this split vote risk not a factor, such as in Finchley and Golders Green, where another signatory to the Remain Labour pledge is seeking to overturn the incumbent pro-Leave Conservative's 1600 vote majority.

Much better, thank you. That's a good, solid post with robust detail.

Could you provide a full list of the 10 Remain Labour constituencies impacted, please. I'm genuinely curious.

[Vassenor]

In fact, of the 13 Labour-held seats being targeted by the Alliance, 10 of them returned a pro-Remain Labour MP at the last election, some of them with margins thin enough that split opposition voting becomes a factor - for example, Penistone and Stocksbridge was won by a margin of just 1,322, with the Liberal vote at ~2000, and the MP for Stroud, who called Brexit “one of the biggest domestic policy disasters this country has known”, is at risk with a majority of just 687 with a combined Liberal / Green vote of 3,476. Eight of those targeted have already signed on to the Remain Labour caucus mentioned before.

The MPs in Bristol West, Dulwich and West Norwood and two Exeter constituencies are being targeted despite the fact they voted against even triggering Article 50 in the first place, with the MPs for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and York Central also voting against A50 but not signing the RL pledge, and are on the targets list too.

And this is without getting into Conservative candidates holding narrow margins who could be unseated were this split vote risk not a factor, such as in Finchley and Golders Green, where another signatory to the Remain Labour pledge is seeking to overturn the incumbent pro-Leave Conservative's 1600 vote majority.

Much better, thank you. That's a good, solid post with robust detail.

Could you provide a full list of the 10 Remain Labour constituencies impacted, please. I'm genuinely curious.

The current list (cross-referencing your provided list of objectives with the list of signatories at https://www.remain-labour.co.uk/campaign-pledge-ge-2019)

Of the MPs standing for re-election who have signed the Pledge whose seats are Alliance objectives:
Jo Stevens, Cardiff Central

Stephen Morgan, Portsmouth South

Ben Bradshaw, Exeter

Thangam Debbonaire, Bristol West

Helen Hayes, Dulwich and West Norwood

Candidates for election in objective seats who have signed:
Dan Greef, South Cambridgeshire

Cheryl Pidgeon, Rushcliffe

Matt Uberoi, Chelsea and Fulham

Steffie Williams Roberts, Afron

David Morgan, Buckingham

​Ross Houston, Finchley and Golders Green

Jackie Schneider, Wimbledon

Rosa Bolger, Witney

Chris Ostrowski, Watford

Jonny Roberts, Wantage

Robert Logan, Thornbury and Yate

James Bull, South East Cambridgeshire


Putting the numbers error down to an issue with my original research. Also need to go more in depth to identify which candidates are more likely to be a spoiler or get spoiled.

[The Archregimancy]

Apologies for taking a while to post this; I've written it either side of my commute home.

Much better, thank you. That's a good, solid post with robust detail.

Could you provide a full list of the 10 Remain Labour constituencies impacted, please. I'm genuinely curious.

The current list (cross-referencing your provided list of objectives with the list of signatories at https://www.remain-labour.co.uk/campaign-pledge-ge-2019)

Of the MPs standing for re-election who have signed the Pledge whose seats are Alliance objectives:
Jo Stevens, Cardiff Central

Stephen Morgan, Portsmouth South

Ben Bradshaw, Exeter

Thangam Debbonaire, Bristol West

Helen Hayes, Dulwich and West Norwood

Candidates for election in objective seats who have signed:
Dan Greef, South Cambridgeshire

Cheryl Pidgeon, Rushcliffe

Matt Uberoi, Chelsea and Fulham

Steffie Williams Roberts, Afron

David Morgan, Buckingham

​Ross Houston, Finchley and Golders Green

Jackie Schneider, Wimbledon

Rosa Bolger, Witney

Chris Ostrowski, Watford

Jonny Roberts, Wantage

Robert Logan, Thornbury and Yate

James Bull, South East Cambridgeshire


Putting the numbers error down to an issue with my original research. Also need to go more in depth to identify which candidates are more likely to be a spoiler or get spoiled.

That's useful thank you.

So if I'm reading your post correctly, it impacts only five sitting MPs. It certainly doesn't threaten Debonnaire (Bristol West), Bradshaw (Exeter), or Hayes (Dulwich); they're quite safe, as addressed elsewhere in this thread.

Of the others...

Stevens (Cardiff Central) won over 60% of the vote in 2017; she's presumably safe short of a political earthquake.

Morgan (Portsmouth South) is in a marginal, but one with an unusual history. Portsmouth South has been won by all three parties in the three elections between 2010-2017 (SDP then LibDem Mike Hancock held the seat from '84-'87, and then again from '97-'15), and the LibDems control Portsmouth City Council with much of their support focused in the south of Portsmouth (a city I know well; a close family member was a candidate for Portsmouth North in the 1970s); so while the LibDems fell from first to third over two elections (and Labour have gone from third to first in the same time period), the LibDems will have serious aspirations to take a seat that they held for nearly 20 years prior to 2015. So not a huge surprise they're making an effort here.

So of the five sitting MPs, it negatively impacts precisely one - and one standing in a seat with a long recent LibDem history in a city with a strong LibDem presence.

As noted in my earlier post covering the Greens, the Unite to Remain alliance isn't necessarily always targeting seats. That's no doubt the impression that it would like people to have, but no one seriously expects the Greens to win Bristol West, Dulwich, or Exeter. In these cases it may be more about local considerations - increasing the party's profile to give it stronger opportunities in local elections, for example.



Anyway, of the other seats, where new pro-Remain Labour candidates are contesting seats currently held by other parties:

South Cambridgeshire: Constituency polling shows the LibDems are in the lead and Labour are nowhere. See here. It doesn't take a misleading LibDem leaflet to see this seat is now a straight-up LibDem - Conservative fight. Mr Greef is welcome to stand down if he wants to avoid splitting the Remain vote.

Rushcliffe: Ken Clarke's old seat. Even allowing that the loss of a longstanding popular local MP might have an impact, the LibDems and Greens combined won only 7.5% of the vote in 2017; the Tories won over 50%; so likely little impact here.

Chelsea and Fulham: Greg Hands won over 50% of the vote in 2017, and over 60% in 2015; so likely little impact.

Arfon: This is already a Plaid Cymru seat; and a straight-up PC - Labour marginal. Whatever happens, a remainer MP will be elected.

Buckingham: As the former Speaker's seat, there's no precedent to fall back on since 2005. What we can see is that it's been held continuously by the Tories or the Speaker since 1970 (Robert Maxwell - of all people - briefly held it for Labour between '66-'70). The Tories won over 50% of the vote in all but one election from 1979 through 2005, with Labour and the LibDems neck and neck for second/third. Clearly Labour and the LibDems are nonetheless sniffing blood here, with the LibDems running former Tory cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell (who came to the party via Change UK). But given the closeness of the Labour / LibDem vote in the period immediately before the seat stopped being contested, it's not clear why one party should agree to stand aside in favour of the other. I can't find a constituency poll.

Finchley and Golders Green: Superficially, it might look like the Labour candidate has a right to be irritated with this one. Conservative Mike Freer won the seat by a narrow 3.2% margin over Labour in 2017, with the LibDems a distant third with only 6% of the vote. Labour held the seat from 1997-2010. This is, of course, where Luciana Berger is running as a LibDem, on the basis of Finchley being a Remainer seat with a strong Jewish minority vote. But.... the latest constituency poll from Survation shows that Berger is romping it with 41% of the vote (important caveat: said constituency poll is just under a month old). So, as with South Cambridgeshire, if the currently third-placed Labour candidate wants to step aside to avoid splitting the Remainer vote, be our guest.

Wimbledon: One of a couple of seats where the Labour remainer candidate might have serious grounds for complaint. Labour were a clear second behind Stephen Hammond in 2017; the LibDems were third with about 16% of the vote. I know of no constituency polls for this one. The LibDems are likely hoping that the relative collapse in Labour support in some of the more affluent seats in Greater London puts the seat in play for them. I can offer no informed opinion over whether that judgement is well-placed or not.

Witney: David Cameron's old seat. I don't think it's seriously in play; the LibDems finished a strong second in the 2016 by-election, and then Labour marginally pipped them to second by about 150 votes in 2017; but Robert Courts won just over 55% of the vote in 2017, so it's unlikely Unite to Remain will have much impact other than potentially pushing Labour to third. Anyway, it's not clear why either Labour or the LibDems should stand down for each other given there's no clear favourite for second.

Watford: As with Wimbledon, one where the Labour remainer might be legitimately upset. Labour were a clear second in 2017, losing by a margin of only 3.6%; the LibDems were a distant third with only 9.1% of the vote. Richard Harrington is standing down. It's a slightly less extreme version of Portsmouth South. While the LibDems never held the seat, they were a strong second in 2005 and 2010, and the local council is overwhelmingly LibDem (they hold 26 of the 36 borough council seats); this is likely driving LibDem calculations. I know of no constituency polls that would clarify the situation.

Wantage: Ed Vaizey held this seat comfortably for years, with over 50% of the vote in most elections. It's only ever been won by the Tories, and only at the peak of Blair's late 90s popularity did the two main opposition parties make any dent in the Tory vote share. I suppose it may depend on who replaces Vaizey, but I would be surprised if the seat was in play.

Thornbury and Yate: Surely you're mistaken that this is a Labour target seat? It was a LibDem seat when formed, just taken by the Tories in 2015, and the Tories consolidated their position in 2017. The LibDems remain a clear second, with Labour winning only 12% of the vote in 2017. So no, I don't think the Labour candidate is hard done by here.

South East Cambridgeshire: a Conservative seat since its formation in 1983, the LibDems/SDP have finished second in this seat in every election except 1997 and 2017. However, since Lucy Frazer holds the seat with more than 55% of the vote, any arguing over who's more likely to harm who is likely pointless. No likely impact on the outcome.


Summed up, of the five sitting remainer Labour MPs, only Stephen Morgan in Portsmouth South will likely be impacted.

Of the 12 candidates who aren't MPs, it looks like two - the candidates for Wimbledon and Watford - might have legitimate grounds for thinking Unite to Remain might seriously impact the chances of returning a Remain MP. There are a couple of others (South Cambridgeshire and Finchley) where they might lose what they would have thought was a winnable seat to the LibDems, but not as a direct cause of Unite to Remain, and a Remainer is the favourite to win in both. They might lose Arfon to the alliance, but a pro-Remain MP will be elected regardless.


Final summing up: Unite to Remain covers 60 seats; out of those 60, only three Labour Remainers seem to be at risk of either losing their existing seat, or not winning a Labour target, to a Leave candidate. That's 5% of the seats where Unite to Remain reached agreement.

It's almost enough to make you think that harming Labour Remainers wasn't really the primary goal of Unite to Remain.

[Vassenor]

I never said it was the primary goal. I called it an unintended consequence.

[SD_Film Artists]

[Snip]

[The Archregimancy]

I never said it was the primary goal. I called it an unintended consequence.

For three candidates; out of 60; maybe.

Somebody sound the last trumpet; the political apocalypse is at hand.