Lib Dems are the reson Brexit is going ahead.

So basically the lib dems decided to vote WITH the tories to allow a general election because they thought that they would win a lot of seats based on the EU election results. If they never voted in favour of the election the Tories would be stuck and most likely a 2nd referendum would have been proposed. But the lib dems thought they would gain more seats and became power hungry.

Secondly, the arrogance of the lib dems (and labour) for not creating a pact where they would stand down in marginal seats to stop the tories. If they had of done that they would have stopped the tories getting a majority (or at least only a weak majority). The tories and the brexit party worked together but the lib dems and labour never.

1) Over 100 Labour MPs, including Corbyn, also voted for the election.

2) The Lib Dems and Labour are parties in their own right, with different policies and ways of doing things. They’re not just a singular anti-Tory group with nothing else going for them. And even if they did have a pact, it would have only made a marginal difference (a few seats at most), especially because not all Labour supporters would have voted Lib Dem if such a pact was in place, and vice versa.

3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

@Muscular-Mouse: I agree. Corbyn is a convenient scapegoat but I would argue a lot of the blame should go elsewhere. Of course, he needs to take his share of the blame, but the reason this election was held after Johnson's previous attempts failed was because SNP and Lib Dems pushed for it (Labour didn't have numbers to block it from then on), and this was a catastrophic strategic error which played right into Johnson's strategists hands as it allowed the election to be framed on their terms, as 'People vs Parliament.

Prior to then, Johnson was being boxed in by parliament and being held to account by the likes of Grieve and Benn, and Remain minded MPs had far more influence on proceedings than they have now. I'm particularly disappointed with Swinson's Lib Dem leadership. Think back to the summer, they had done v well in the Euro elections, a good by-election win and defections. You couldn't ask for a better set of conditions to inherit, yet this has all been squandered with nothing to show for it. To cut Swinson some slack she could have grown into the leadership role in time, but if she was generally unprepared for the rigours of an election campaign, why call for one, especially when it risked what has come to pass, with a large Tory (and therefore Brexit supporting) majority.

With regards to SNP, I like Sturgeon - she's a v capable political operator generally, and appreciate the efforts made by SNP MP Joanna Cherry on holding Johnson to account on Brexit. However, whilst they have gained more seats in this election the stakes have got higher, and there is a higher risk of a harder Brexit happening - they may think it'll be worth it to help bolster case for Scottish independence but there could be a lot of collateral damage.

When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

Duty281 wrote:1) Over 100 Labour MPs, including Corbyn, also voted for the election.

2) The Lib Dems and Labour are parties in their own right, with different policies and ways of doing things. They’re not just a singular anti-Tory group with nothing else going for them. And even if they did have a pact, it would have only made a marginal difference (a few seats at most), especially because not all Labour supporters would have voted Lib Dem if such a pact was in place, and vice versa.

3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

Labour were forced to vote for the election because the lib dems supported the tories in holding an election meaning with or without labour's support an election would take place.

The lib dems and labour are different parties but they are both opposed to tories. There were about 40-50 marginal seats that could have been won by either party if one of them stood down. Instead they worked against each other.

This election wasn't an endorsement of brexit. Plenty of reasons why people voted tory and it wasn't just brexit, many hated Corbyn due his anti-Semitism, terrorism links (not saying its true but that's how the media painted it). I will also add that if you are saying it was a brexit election then remain won because 52.6% of votes went to parties opposed to brexit. The same in the European elections where parties opposed to brexit got more votes.

MrInvisible wrote:@Muscular-Mouse: I agree.  Corbyn is a convenient scapegoat but I would argue a lot of the blame should go elsewhere.  Of course, he needs to take his share of the blame, but the reason this election was held after Johnson's previous attempts failed was because SNP and Lib Dems pushed for it (Labour didn't have numbers to block it from then on), and this was a catastrophic strategic error which played right into Johnson's strategists hands as it allowed the election to be framed on their terms, as 'People vs Parliament.

Prior to then, Johnson was being boxed in by parliament and being held to account by the likes of Grieve and Benn, and Remain minded MPs had far more influence on proceedings than they have now.  I'm particularly disappointed with Swinson's Lib Dem leadership.  Think back to the summer, they had done v well in the Euro elections, a good by-election win and defections.  You couldn't ask for a better set of conditions to inherit, yet this has all been squandered with nothing to show for it.  To cut Swinson some slack she could have grown into the leadership role in time, but if she was generally unprepared for the rigours of an election campaign, why call for one, especially when it risked what has come to pass, with a large Tory (and therefore Brexit supporting) majority.

With regards to SNP, I like Sturgeon - she's a v capable political operator generally, and appreciate the efforts made by SNP MP Joanna Cherry on holding Johnson to account on Brexit.  However, whilst they have gained more seats in this election the stakes have got higher, and there is a higher risk of a harder Brexit happening - they may think it'll be worth it to help bolster case for Scottish independence but there could be a lot of collateral damage.

I agree with this.

Parliament at the time was blocking Brexit, so why would remain parties (lib dems) support an election especially when Johnson was riding high in the polls. It is beyond me. I think Swinson thought she would gain some seats and put that above the possibility of losing and allowing brexit to happen.

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Labour as a party are not opposed to Brexit, did you miss the whole campaign?

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Not how it works, having a Tory MP should in theory increase investment in the area, Labour run councils are for example poorly managed.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Not how it works, having a Tory MP should in theory increase investment in the area, Labour run councils are for example poorly managed.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Not how it works, having a Tory MP should in theory increase investment in the area, Labour run councils are for example poorly managed.

Ahem, who runs Northamptonshire Council which famously went bankrupt in 2018: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/02/10/nort-f10.html

Or Surrey Council, which also had to be bailed out.

Duty281 wrote:1)
3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

I know it seems the referendum was along time ago. But we've only had 2 elections since (17 &19). Now you could argue the Tories win the 2015 because of putting they were going to have a referendum.
But 2010 and the ones before hand were nothing to do with Brexit in the slightest.

Luke wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1)
3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

I know it seems the referendum was along time ago. But we've only had 2 elections since (17 &19). Now you could argue the Tories win the 2015 because of putting they were going to have a referendum.
But 2010 and the ones before hand were nothing to do with Brexit in the slightest.

Two consecutive European elections.

But you could argue that 2017 was less about Brexit and more about austerity. Which is how come labour did well (to a degree).

Luke wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1)
3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

I know it seems the referendum was along time ago. But we've only had 2 elections since (17 &19). Now you could argue the Tories win the 2015 because of putting they were going to have a referendum.
But 2010 and the ones before hand were nothing to do with Brexit in the slightest.

UKIP won the 2014 European Elections. Tories won a majority in 2015 with a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. Leave won the referendum. 85% of votes in the 2017 GE went to parties pledging to honour the referendum result. Brexit Party won the 2019 European Elections. Tories won a big majority in 2019 on a platform of ‘Get Brexit Done’.

The latest poll by Lord Ashcroft also shows a majority want to Leave the EU, which is finally happening, thank goodness.

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1)
3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

I know it seems the referendum was along time ago. But we've only had 2 elections since (17 &19). Now you could argue the Tories win the 2015 because of putting they were going to have a referendum.
But 2010 and the ones before hand were nothing to do with Brexit in the slightest.

UKIP won the 2014 European Elections. Tories won a majority in 2015 with a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. Leave won the referendum. 85% of votes in the 2017 GE went to parties pledging to honour the referendum result. Brexit Party won the 2019 European Elections. Tories won a big majority in 2019 on a platform of ‘Get Brexit Done’.

The latest poll by Lord Ashcroft also shows a majority want to Leave the EU, which is finally happening, thank goodness.

But to be fair, both labour and the conservatives have always said that they honour the results. So 85 % are always going to leave. Regardless of who they voted.
Be interesting to see how we leave now.

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:

Duty281 wrote:1)
3) Brexit is going ahead because it is supported by most. This is the 6th consecutive election to indicate that fact.

I know it seems the referendum was along time ago. But we've only had 2 elections since (17 &19). Now you could argue the Tories win the 2015 because of putting they were going to have a referendum.
But 2010 and the ones before hand were nothing to do with Brexit in the slightest.

UKIP won the 2014 European Elections. Tories won a majority in 2015 with a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. Leave won the referendum. 85% of votes in the 2017 GE went to parties pledging to honour the referendum result. Brexit Party won the 2019 European Elections. Tories won a big majority in 2019 on a platform of ‘Get Brexit Done’.

The latest poll by Lord Ashcroft also shows a majority want to Leave the EU, which is finally happening, thank goodness.

That is why you can't mix up a general election and a referendum. You say 85% of people voted for brexit supporting parties in 2017 but that has no relevance as to whether 85% of people support brexit. I voted Labour in 2017 and had no wish to leave the EU, I voted Labour because I didn't agree with austerity and felt May had called an election as part of a power grab.

Soul Requiem wrote:Labour as a party are not opposed to Brexit, did you miss the whole campaign?

Labour were pro a second referendum. Yes the party would take a neutral stance but the fact they would hold a 2nd referendum means they are a remain party (to voters).

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Not how it works, having a Tory MP should in theory increase investment in the area, Labour run councils are for example poorly managed.

How will having a tory mp increase investment? It was the tories (and lib dems) who cut the council budgets meaning councils had less money in the 1st place.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Labour as a party are not opposed to Brexit, did you miss the whole campaign?

Labour were pro a second referendum. Yes the party would take a neutral stance but the fact they would hold a 2nd referendum means they are a remain party (to voters).

Completely wrong.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Not how it works, having a Tory MP should in theory increase investment in the area, Labour run councils are for example poorly managed.

How will having a tory mp increase investment? It was the tories (and lib dems) who cut the council budgets meaning councils had less money in the 1st place.

Governments give more money to councils run by the same party.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Labour as a party are not opposed to Brexit, did you miss the whole campaign?

Labour were pro a second referendum. Yes the party would take a neutral stance but the fact they would hold a 2nd referendum means they are a remain party (to voters).

Completely wrong.

if you say so

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:When you have former mining communities voting Conservative because of a lack of faith in the Labour leadership you can assume that was the main issue.

I have seen a lot of videos where people said they have voted Tories in 2019 because they wanted change because they were not happy with how things were being run... I hate to break it to these people but the Tories have been in power for 10 years, they are the reason the country has gone down the pan.

Not how it works, having a Tory MP should in theory increase investment in the area, Labour run councils are for example poorly managed.

How will having a tory mp increase investment? It was the tories (and lib dems) who cut the council budgets meaning councils had less money in the 1st place.

Governments give more money to councils run by the same party.

I don't think anybody is taking your view point and I think you are scraping the barrel with this one. THIS government cut council funding by nearly 40%.When these people stated they voted Tory for a change because they are not happy with how things have been run, they failed to grasp that it was the tories who caused this chaos. The tories cut council funding by nearly 40%, the tories cut police numbers, the tories cut prison officer numbers, the tories shut down police and fire brigade stations.

The problem is these people saw a new face (Johnson) and believed they were voting for something new, even though he is part of the status quo.

They failed to grasp did they? Or do they just think for themselves?

Soul Requiem wrote:They failed to grasp did they? Or do they just think for themselves?

How can you vote for change by voting for the same thing (same government)?

No one has ever voted for this government before, party yes.

And the barrel scraping continues.

:yawn: No, it's not the fault of the LibDems. In fact, it's not the fault of anyone. ~52% of the UK voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. End of story.

navyblueshorts wrote::yawn: No, it's not the fault of the LibDems. In fact, it's not the fault of anyone. ~52% of the UK voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. End of story.

52% of those that voted. Not 52% of the UK.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote::yawn: No, it's not the fault of the LibDems. In fact, it's not the fault of anyone. ~52% of the UK voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. End of story.

52% of those that voted. Not 52% of the UK.

Fair point. However, that's the way a referendum/election works. Still not the fault of the LibDems that Brexit is now going to happen. Maybe more people should have got out and voted?

Maybe Corbyn should have swallowed his pride and allowed Ken Clarke to head an emergency government but alas he did not.

Or maybe Corbyn should have realised that trying to be all things to all people regarding Brexit wasn't going to wash, and that he would just end up looking weak.

The irony is that historically Corbyn has been fairly strongly anti-EU, which probably explains why he was almost silent in the referendum campaign in the first place.

There was no way a 'Government of National Unity' could have lasted for more than a few weeks, without being portrayed as a remainer coup d'état, so a General Election was inevitable from the point Boris lost his majority. Only question was when - at most it could have been pushed back to maybe Feb 2020.

Soul Requiem wrote:No one has ever voted for this government before, party yes.

The fact you are forced to nitpick proves my point correct.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No one has ever voted for this government before, party yes.

The fact you are forced to nitpick proves my point correct.

It's not nitpicking just purely a fact.

dummy_half wrote:Or maybe Corbyn should have realised that trying to be all things to all people regarding Brexit wasn't going to wash, and that he would just end up looking weak.

The irony is that historically Corbyn has been fairly strongly anti-EU, which probably explains why he was almost silent in the referendum campaign in the first place.

There was no way a 'Government of National Unity' could have lasted for more than a few weeks, without being portrayed as a remainer coup d'état, so a General Election was inevitable from the point Boris lost his majority. Only question was when - at most it could have been pushed back to maybe Feb 2020.

I don't quite agree that Corbyn was almost silent in the EU referendum - whilst he could have been bit more effective (I recall he did say a fair bit on disadvantages of Brexit, but could have done more to explain all the benefits EU has brought to North-East England/South Wales) he was more active than people give him credit for - but media were more interested in the 'Johnson vs Cameron' angle so it didn't get reported.

On the government of national unity, the SNP were pragmatic about Corbyn leading it but Swinson was more dogmatic demanding Labour had to change their leader - you're probably right though it would still have ultimately generated a backlash from Brexit-supporting electorate like we saw last week.

Going back to original premise of this article I do feel there was potential for getting a 2nd referendum as part of condition of approving the deal, and every ounce of energy from opposition parties should have gone on that rather than capitulating to a general election.

This election result is only being framed as a loss to Labour. Whilst this is true, isn't it also a devastating loss for the Remain side broadly? The main Remain party in England and Wales, Lib Dems, gained no ground whatsoever whilst Labour got turned over for not being Brexit enough in the north and midlands.

For me, last week's election was treated as another Brexit referendum by those who want to leave (more so than 2017 because they feel there is now a genuine threat of Brexit taking place which didn't exist back in 2017) whilst the fractured Remain electorate treated it more as a general election. Under first past the post treating an election like a referendum is always going to influence part of electorate in quite dramatic way.

* Remain minded Tories not voting Lib Dem for fear of Corbyn gaining power (I find this pretty weak argument as even if Corbyn is such a disaster he can be booted out in 5 years, whereas Brexit is more permanent).
* Labour voters not prepared to vote tactically in enough numbers for Lib Dem to pick up seats, due to backing austerity in coalition.
* Johnson somehow managed to convince enough of electorate he was new and a change from Cameron and May - this comes back to timing of election which worked incredibly favourably for him.

The so called People's Vote campaign has been beset by infighting, whereas against the expectations, Farage and Tories managed to do a v beneficial deal. I also wonder if the Lib Dem revoke position seemed a bit too extreme/undemocratic for 'softer Remainers'.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:No one has ever voted for this government before, party yes.

The fact you are forced to nitpick proves my point correct.

It's not nitpicking just purely a fact.

Well it is nitpicking. You knew full well the point I was making, and instead of countering that point with arguments and logic you decided to nitpick because I used the word government rather than party.

Like I said the fact you nitpicked proves you couldn't counter the main point I was making