FT General Election Poll 2019

[Dirkster the Fox]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Although John, it is probably time now to just admit you meant it, we know you did.

 

Nothing wrong with not wanting Corbyn as PM - I'd imagine most of your colleagues feel exactly the same and a fair few in the Tories feel the same about Boris.

McDonnell will be having old Jon lad quietly sent to the Gulags this weekend.

 

This is the last you'll see of poor Jon.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and in the case of that country the people running the economy evidently valued the money over their people and/or investors and traders from outside did so too (given the collapse, usually caused by devaluation and inflation, yes?) so those people felt that they had to run.

 

My point, and I apologise if I'm making it hamfistedly, is that in something like this that exists only because of human perception, there is always a choice. A nation doesn't have to withhold services from its citizens, and if it doesn't other countries and investors don't have to pass judgement and devalue a currency to the point of collapse because of perceived mismanagement. It's all smoke and mirrors, based on the value that people say it has, nothing more. It's not a danger in the same way that a natural disaster or somesuch that has been exacerbated by humans because it is entirely within the scope of human control and doesn't have to happen.

In the case of Venezuela, it was valuing the extreme socialist economic policy based on a single export and it's stance on anything anti-American over everything else that impoverished it's people.

 

A potential lesson for many countries in it.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

In the case of Venezuela, it was valuing the extreme socialist economic policy based on a single export and it's stance on anything anti-American over everything else that impoverished it's people.

 

A potential lesson for many countries in it.

...and other countries on the outside deciding that their economic management was a bad idea and jettisoning the currency because of it.

 

A potential lesson, indeed.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and other countries on the outside deciding that their economic management was a bad idea and jettisoning the currency because of it.

 

A potential lesson, indeed.

Would you stand there continuing handing £20 notes out of your wallet to a person setting fire to them whilst shouting he promises to pay you back?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Would you stand there continuing handing £20 notes out of your wallet to a person setting fire to them whilst shouting he promises to pay you back?

I'd tell him to stop comparing personal wealth to national economics as the two aren't even close to being alike.

 

Which, as it happens, is part of the point I'm trying to make here.

[Kopfkino]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...and in the case of that country the people running the economy evidently valued the money over their people and/or investors and traders from outside did so too (given the collapse, usually caused by devaluation and inflation, yes?) so those people felt that they had to run.

 

My point, and I apologise if I'm making it hamfistedly, is that in something like this that exists only because of human perception, there is always a choice. A nation doesn't have to withhold services from its citizens, and if it doesn't other countries and investors don't have to pass judgement and devalue a currency to the point of collapse because of perceived mismanagement. It's all smoke and mirrors, based on the value that people say it has, nothing more. It's not a danger in the same way that a natural disaster or somesuch that has been exacerbated by humans because it is entirely within the scope of human control and doesn't have to happen.

Have you finally transitioned to full parody? Proper sixth form stuff this.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I'd tell him to stop comparing personal wealth to national economics as the two aren't even close to being alike.

 

Which, as it happens, is part of the point I'm trying to make here.

So would you continue to buy bonds in Venezuela then were you in charge of a company or government budget ?

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Have you finally transitioned to full parody? Proper sixth form stuff this.

Go on then, Kopf. You're the economics expert, I'm just the astrophysicist and teacher who happens to have some contempt for the value people so often put on the material.

 

The floor is yours, please go ahead and tell me why national economics of this type does (or doesn't) mean more than human suffering or life based on situation and decision-making and how it is or isn't subjective and how it all ties into that. How is it beyond human control, if indeed it is?

 

I'm genuinely curious about listening to the take of someone much better-versed in the field than I and wanting an explanation as I've been asking the question for long enough, so it's all yours.

 

NB. And I can empathise with the frustration you evidently feel at the present time having read some of the takes on climate change science (and other hard science) here.

 

 

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

So would you continue to buy bonds in Venezuela then were you in charge of a company or government budget ?

If I knew the end result of me not doing so (along with others doing the same) was the impoverishment and subsequent suffering and strife of a great many people, then quite possibly.

 

But then I clearly lack the stomach to allow such suffering in the name of a rather subjective greater good.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If I knew the end result of me not doing so (along with others doing the same) was the impoverishment and subsequent suffering and strife of a great many people, then quite possibly.

But then I clearly lack the stomach to allow such suffering in the name of a rather subjective greater good.

Mental to be honest, as someone said earlier, sixth form politics.

[bmt]

43 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You clearly don't understand the measure you are quoting.  Relative poverty is based on households income as a % of median income (typically - sometimes mean).  On this basis, it is actually impossible to iradicate poverty, becuase if you increase the incomes of those at the bottom the average moves upwards.  It is useful as a comparitve measure vs other countries (See the OECD chart) but not something you can target to zero.

No it doesn't if it's the median. If you have a population of 10 individuals, with income distribution 5 5 5 5 10 10 20 30 40 50 the median is 10 and 40% are in relative poverty (below 60% of median income). You can reduce that to 0 by giving each of the bottom 4 individuals 2 or more units, which can be paid with a tax exclusively on those who earn 40 units or more (maybe 20% of over 30 unit income and 40% of over 40 unit income). 

[Kopfkino]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Go on then, Kopf. You're the economics expert, I'm just the astrophysicist and teacher who happens to have some contempt for the value people so often put on the material.

 

The floor is yours, please go ahead and tell me why national economics of this type does (or doesn't) mean more than human suffering or life based on situation and decision-making and how it is or isn't subjective and how it all ties into that. How is it beyond human control, if indeed it is?

 

I'm genuinely curious about listening to the take of someone much better-versed in the field than I and wanting an explanation as I've been asking the question for long enough, so it's all yours.

 

NB. And I can empathise with the frustration you evidently feel at the present time having read some of the takes on climate change science (and other hard science) here.

I'm certainly no expert. I just think that a point about money having no intrinsic value, only whatever value people imagine it to have and that value results in a human choice that doesn't need to be made is plain daft. Money as a means of exchange has got us to a great point of prosperity. Venezuela made the choice to print money to make up for its structural reliance on oil rather than live within its means and its citizens suffered as a result. Ofc a big problem problem was the fall in the price of oil which of course wouldn't happen if we didn't have fantasy values of money but then Venezuela would never have to rich in the first place.

 

What you'd want is a system purely of trust where I scratch your back and I hope someone else scratches mine and they hope you scratch theirs. It's just utopian thinking and I have no time for it, some of us want to get on with living in the real world and aren't desperate for humans to be droids operating exactly as I want them to on literally everything. 

Edited 10 December 2019 by Kopfkino

[Guest MattP]

Hahaha moment of the election for me from Boris  

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

24 minutes ago, bmt said:

No it doesn't if it's the median. If you have a population of 10 individuals, with income distribution 5 5 5 5 10 10 20 30 40 50 the median is 10 and 40% are in relative poverty (below 60% of median income). You can reduce that to 0 by giving each of the bottom 4 individuals 2 or more units, which can be paid with a tax exclusively on those who earn 40 units or more (maybe 20% of over 30 unit income and 40% of over 40 unit income). 

You are quite right, I am obviously too bloody tired this week to think straight!  

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Mental to be honest, as someone said earlier, sixth form politics.

The world doesn't have to be the way it is for a long or even a short time, and the day I stop believing that you can put me to bed with a shovel - "sixth form" thinking or not be damned.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I'm certainly no expert. I just think that a point about money having no intrinsic value, only whatever value people imagine it to have and that value results in a human choice that doesn't need to be made is plain daft. Money as a means of exchange has got us to a great point of prosperity. Venezuela made the choice to print money to pay for its deficit spending and essentially make its currency worthless, lo and behold its citizens suffer as they have to return to barter to trade with each other.

 

What you'd want is a system purely of trust where I scratch your back and I hope someone else scratches mine and they hope you scratch theirs. It's just utopian thinking and I have no time for it, some of us want to get on with living in the real world and aren't desperate for humans to be droids operating exactly as I want them to on literally everything. 

Thanks for clarifying the viewpoint there some, at least. Do you really think that all that befell Venezuela was the fault of the administration and nothing in terms of economic activity from outside, then?

 

And yeah, a system of trust and collaboration is exactly what I'm looking for because, oddly enough, I believe humans to actually be capable of it and I think it would be helpful if not crucial to continued human and civilisational survival because evolutionary history is pretty clear about what happens to species that don't collaborate, for the most part. I don't see how that any of that plays into anywhere near the loss of choice you imply (note the choice of words carefully there, please) and if it's "utopian" thinking then so be it - John Locke and the Austrian School don't have a monopoly on truth.

[StanSP]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Hahaha moment of the election for me from Boris  

 

 

eh. it's not that funny  

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

eh. it's not that funny  

I think it is, they wouldn't even try something like that in the thick of it 😂

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think it is, they wouldn't even try something like that in the thick of it 😂

 

They missed a trick not making it a red wall.... 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

They missed a trick not making it a red wall.... 

I thought that but I think people are scared of an egg on face moment since the Ed stone. 

 

Good idea though, was on the news, will be in papers and again drives his "Get Brexit Done" slogan home.

 

Corby rammed his "For the Many" message home last week pretty well, this time I'm not even sure what the Labour message is, it's certainly been a different campaign. 

 

Yougov MRP is 10pm tonight for anyone interested - the 100000+ poll that nailed the hung parliament last time.

[bmt]

29 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You are quite right, I am obviously too bloody tired this week to think straight!  

No worries. You’re quite right about the mean though, that’s why % of median is more widely used nowadays 

[Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The world doesn't have to be the way it is for a long or even a short time, and the day I stop believing that you can put me to bed with a shovel - "sixth form" thinking or not be damned.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying the viewpoint there some, at least. Do you really think that all that befell Venezuela was the fault of the administration and nothing in terms of economic activity from outside, then?

 

And yeah, a system of trust and collaboration is exactly what I'm looking for because, oddly enough, I believe humans to actually be capable of it and I think it would be helpful if not crucial to continued human and civilisational survival because evolutionary history is pretty clear about what happens to species that don't collaborate, for the most part. I don't see how that any of that plays into anywhere near the loss of choice you imply (note the choice of words carefully there, please) and if it's "utopian" thinking then so be it - John Locke and the Austrian School don't have a monopoly on truth.

My understanding of Venezuela is superficial and I already modified my initial post. I don't even know what you'd term as from outside tbh but this is what I'm aware happened:

The price of oil fell, demand for the Bolivar fell so its value fell, imports prices increased. Inflation

The government printed money as a means of getting past this with the hope to oil price rose again. More inflation

The oil price didn't rise but instead of cutting its cloth accordingly and focusing on structural reforms the government kept printing money. More inflation

Investors begin to start leaving because money is devalued and the government goes around seizing stuff, fall in demand for Bolivar, loses value. More inflation

Citizens realise the money they hold is worthless, start either spending it while they can or converting it to something more stable e.g gold or USD.Converting to USD, the exchange rate falls again. More inflation

Government introduces capital controls, black markets exist though so it doesn't work

Inflation becomes so bad it makes more sense to use the currency for anything but currency. The government devalues (the biggest devaluation in history) and pegs to oil.

Government continues to refuse to engage in fiscal consolidation, address structural issues and goes made authoritarian so ultimately doesn't work.

 

 

It is utopian nonsense. No universal means of exchange or store of value (which is all that can be assumed by your rally against the concept of money) requires either a system of barter (but that's daft because its inefficient) or a system where everything that everyone does is valued exactly the same, and when I provide you with a service I have to hope somebody provides me with the service I need with no way to incentivise them to do so other than pure their pure altruistic instinct. Which of course is nonsense to those of us that are interested in studying what humans actually do rather than dreaming about ideals (that are only necessarily ideal to people that catastrophise). There might be some ethnographies detailing how tribes in Outer Mongolia manage it but we know full well what it requires for a large society.

 

Edited 10 December 2019 by Kopfkino

[Alf Bentley]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought that but I think people are scared of an egg on face moment since the Ed stone. 

 

Good idea though, was on the news, will be in papers and again drives his "Get Brexit Done" slogan home.

 

Corby rammed his "For the Many" message home last week pretty well, this time I'm not even sure what the Labour message is, it's certainly been a different campaign. 

 

Yougov MRP is 10pm tonight for anyone interested - the 100000+ poll that nailed the hung parliament last time.

 

Yes, a risk of perceived hubris if they'd used a red wall, I suppose. 

 

The "Get Brexit Done" slogan may win this election for the Tories, but it could be a millstone around their necks in the future.

If the future EU-UK relationship is still being negotiated a few years down the line or if Brexit causes major problems, it will be quoted back at them big-time.

 

"It's time for real change" is the title of the Labour manifesto - and I've heard a few party leaders deploy that phrase. Not sure that has cut through, though.

All this endless repeating of key phrases is boring for those of us who pay close attention to politics, but probably is essential - and I'm not sure that unifying concept has been promoted strongly enough....too many disconnected promises.

 

Yes, the YouGov poll will be interesting. This election will be more unpredictable than any other, though, I think, and could yet be anywhere between Hung Parliament with Tories biggest party and Tory Landslide close to 100 majority.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that there are more undecided voters than ever before. Might not affect things, particularly if many stay at home, but then there's tactical voting & differential turnout, plus the last YouGov polls suggested that an awful lot of constituencies looked very close. Exit Poll might be the first semi-reliable indicator....

 

Edited 10 December 2019 by Alf Bentley

[LiberalFox]

All Venezuela proves is you can't solve structural economic problems by printing money, something absolutely nobody actually believes. Surely it's up there with "Brexit voters are thick and racist" that leftists "want to print money and make everyone a millionaire". Venezuela is a complex situation and I hate people trying to score political points out of it. 

 

 

[SecretPro]

88% v 0%

 

 

[Foxin_Mad]

4 hours ago, bmt said:

First point - it was a joke which has been done multiple times before. Lib Dems/Tories decided to use it to score political points.

 

The rest of your comment is ridiculous conjecture and has no evidence. The one thing that is clear is that you aren't an economist. The only evidence we have (as there isn't that great a counterfactual) is that inequality and poverty are on the rise as things are. 

There was no money, actually no money. It's not a particularly funny joke. This time there actually was no money.

 

Labour ran a deficit in good times, let banks run unregulated, encouraged a unsustainable property price boom, bloated the public sector, loaded PFI into hospitals.

 

There is plenty of evidence, the IFS have stated as much. We have living proof in Venezuela of the sort of damage these backward socialist policies have on encomies and wealth, this in a country with vast supplies of oil not relying on 'the city's for 75% of GDP. 

 

How do you know I am not an economist? because I dont buy tax and spend? 

 

I would like to see your evidence of poverty and inequality rising too? How does it compare to Venezuela? Where Corbyns policies are in action!

[Foxin_Mad]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

Is it a case of the above all "having to be done" and those people inevitably caught up in it being simply "collateral damage" in the name of tightening the belts, then?

In a way yes in the system we have. What a government or politician needs to do is admit if we want to spend more we ALL need to pay a lot more. I am not sure how much appetite there is for that.

 

In that kind of society there will be a lot less jobs.

 

It's not good stoking up hate against the nasty rich man, which is what Labour far left extremists are doing. The divisive envious rhetoric will get us nowhere. We need have proper debate on sensible sustaiable policy.

 

Not a we must punish the evil rich and business, it's basically shooting the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

If you value a job, your own home and car (most people). You are an absolute fool to vote Labour, they put that a serious risk with their policies.