Election 2019, Week 1

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

A 'sect'? This is the only party (apart from Brexit) that is determined to deliver on the result of the referendum.

That word is more appropriate to describe Corbyn's Labour Party.

---------- Post added at 14:24 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------



Thank you for correcting, but it wasn't clear in that article that he was an ex-MP, just that he was an ex-Tory MP.

Incidentally, your assumption that some of those who voted Conservative last time were oldies and have died off only to be replaced by younger socialist-minded people has received a bit of a knock.

According to newspaper reports, the age at which a voter was more likely to have voted Tory than Labour, is now 40, down from 47 at the 2017 election.

This is the finding of a MORI poll. As well as that, a YouGov poll has revealed that Labour has lost many young voters since the last election, most notably to the Green Party.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...ividing-britai

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s hardly a pointless re-run if it’s a detailed outcome vs the status quo. Not my thoughts, that was Jacob Rees-Mogg!

It’s our public services too that are suffering. The country was never in danger of “going bankrupt”, indeed other countries have in the past used public sector investment projects to drive growth in the economy.

The “our hard earned money” line is the oldest line in the neo-liberal capitalist handbook. It ignores that money moves round the economy driving demand and promoting growth. Doctors, nurses and teachers spend money in the economy.

Money sitting in offshore accounts doesn’t do any of this. It just sits waiting to be inherited, with no tax paid on it when that happens.

Labour was borrowing way back in 2002, when the economy was supposedly doing well. They also deferred borrowing by using PFI on an epic scale. If the same levels of spending had been retained we would be borrowing more and more. Unsustainable.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Labour was borrowing way back in 2002, when the economy was supposedly doing well. They also deferred borrowing by using PFI on an epic scale. If the same levels of spending had been retained we would be borrowing more and more. Unsustainable.

And Thatcher borrowed throughout her tenure despite the windfalls of privatisation.

I agree it's not sustainable to structure the economy this way. However the choice of finding public services through taxation or scaling back the state is ideological.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...ividing-britai

The voting intention by educational level is also interesting...

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...%202019-01.png

[jfman]

Surprised so many "highly" educated people can't see through the Lib Dems.

[denphone]

Two opinion polls released in the last hour.

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+2)
LAB: 26% (+2)
LDEM: 16% (+1)
BREX: 9% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)

via
@OpiniumResearch
, 30 Oct - 01 Nov


Westminster voting intention:

CON: 36% (+10)
LAB: 28% (-1)
LDEM: 14% (+6)
BREX: 12% (-2)

via
@ORB_Int
, 30 - 31 Oct
Chgs. w/ Apr

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Labour will deliver a Brexit if the people approve of the deal. What’s unreasonable about that?

Give over, Labour will deliver Hobson’s choice.

A deal which is remaining in the EU or choice B, Remain in the EU.

whoo Ff’no Hoo.

Originally Posted by denphone

Two opinion polls released in the last hour.

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+2)
LAB: 26% (+2)
LDEM: 16% (+1)
BREX: 9% (-1)
GRN: 2% (-1)

via
@OpiniumResearch
, 30 Oct - 01 Nov


Westminster voting intention:

CON: 36% (+10)
LAB: 28% (-1)
LDEM: 14% (+6)
BREX: 12% (-2)

via
@ORB_Int
, 30 - 31 Oct
Chgs. w/ Apr

And another one:

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 40% (+3)
LAB: 28% (+4)
LDEM: 14% (-5)
BREX: 11% (-)

via DeltaPoll UK, 31 Oct - 02 Nov

Very early days but these polls are people’s first impressions based not on the election campaign but on the recent conduct of the parties in Parliament. They suggest that Farage isn’t going to benefit from Boris not having delivered Brexit on Thursday. They also suggest the Limp Dumbs aren’t hoovering up the remainer vote. Perhaps vowing to summarily overturn a democratic vote is too much for all but the most hardened EUphiles.

So far, so Boris. Good.

Originally Posted by Chris

Very early days but these polls are people’s first impressions based not on the election campaign but on the recent conduct of the parties in Parliament. They suggest that Farage isn’t going to benefit from Boris not having delivered Brexit on Thursday. They also suggest the Limp Dumbs aren’t hoovering up the remainer vote. Perhaps vowing to summarily overturn a democratic vote is too much for all but the most hardened EUphiles..

More likely the vote is reverting back to the two parties under FPTP. The Lib Dems announced their revoke policy back in early September.

[jfman]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9182371.html

Old Vince has finally worked it out.

Brexit supporters - is Nigel right or is BJ right?

(on BJ’s deal - NF says don’t back the deal, it’s not Brexit).

Originally Posted by Hugh

Brexit supporters - is Nigel right or is BJ right?

(on BJ’s deal - NF says don’t back the deal, it’s not Brexit).

It gets us out of the EU and into transitional terms with an end date that cannot be extended without our agreement. It is Brexit. We can argue until the cows come home over whether there could have been better transitional terms than these but nobody should be in any doubt that they represent our exit from the EU. Nigel Farage seems to have let his EU election win, his friendship with Trump and his shock jock talk show go to his head.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

And Thatcher borrowed throughout her tenure despite the windfalls of privatisation.

I agree it's not sustainable to structure the economy this way. However the choice of finding public services through taxation or scaling back the state is ideological.

But not when the economy was supposedly doing well. Gordon Brown deliberately threw money around on things like tax credits. An example of unnecessary expenditure was free TV Licences for the over 75s. If may sound nice, but there was no legitimate basis for it. They don't suddenly suffer a drop in income when they hit 75.



It's not sustainable to have to borrow when the economy is doing well. Think of the everyday household budgeting situation. If you use bonuses and overtime to fund more borrowing in order to have a "better" lifestyle, it is inevitable that in time, those bonuses and overtime will disappear. Leaving you with debts and a lifestyle you can no longer afford.


Link

A Labour government would fund £60bn of energy-saving upgrades to low-income households over the next decade while wealthier households would receive interest-free loans for enhancements.
...
Labour says its policy, called "Warm Homes for All", would create 450,000 jobs involved in the installation of energy-saving measures and renewable and low-carbon technologies, the party said.

May sound nice, but apart from where are all those skilled workers going to magically come from, what happens when the job is completed? Those 450,000 will be out of work.

---------- Post added at 01:49 ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Brexit supporters - is Nigel right or is BJ right?

(on BJ’s deal - NF says don’t back the deal, it’s not Brexit).

The backstop and the political declaration are definitely not Brexit. The backstop seems to be illegal in terms of Article 50. Everything else in the WA currently has a defined endpoint. The problem is that as Remainers have shown, they are going to insist on it being extended, long enough for them to impose Remain in full.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

May sound nice, but apart from where are all those skilled workers going to magically come from, what happens when the job is completed? Those 450,000 will be out of work.

So the Government shouldn’t fund anything unless it guarantees a “job for life” for those involved in a project?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

So the Government shouldn’t fund anything unless it guarantees a “job for life” for those involved in a project?

Artificially makes things look better until a Conservative government comes along and has to pick up the pieces, again.