Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Guest MattP

FT General Election Poll 2019

By Guest MattP, in General Chat

FT General Election 2019  

501 members have voted

  1. 1. Which party will be getting your vote?

    • Conservative
      155
    • Labour
      188
    • Liberal Democrats
      93
    • Brexit Party
      17
    • Green Party
      26
    • Other
      22

Recommended Posts

Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Desabafar said:

 

Squeaky bum time, Worried about a hung parliament now. Thankfully most of my assets are still in europe or euro-denominated but i will liquidate anything in the uk if i see corbyn going to the queen and move back to portugal permanently

I wouldn't be worrying in a hung parliament situation, particularly as Labour will struggle to get the numbers and have anything like the power to do anything radical. If they got to a position of implementing the 10% employee share plan then everyone that can should pack up and leave but Labour seem a long way off being in a position to do anything too detrimental.

 

 

On a side note I wonder what this would look like had the boundary changes gone ahead? It just popped into my head and strangely I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Eamonn

Guest Eamonn

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ironically the pound now dropping in case we don't Brexit - as the alternative is a Corbyn led HP.

 

IMG_20191210_230650.jpg

Pound always falls when there is uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m guessing certain accounts have been removed. Pretty sure they were new accounts from currently banned posters.

Still can't believe they all came along at the same time and thought people wouldn't notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopfkino

Kopfkino

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m guessing certain accounts have been removed. Pretty sure they were new accounts from currently banned posters.

Was wondering if it was just me or if it was as blatant to others. Some people with an unhealthy relationship with this forum if they're that desperate to get their posts in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bmt said:

Look at the graph that MattP posted, there never is any money. Every nation in the world except maybe macau is in debt. It’s not like the treasury is actually gringotts bank or something lol.

 

Yes I agree pretty much every western economy in the world was mismanaged due to deregulation and privatisation.

 

Why do people think Venezuela is a fair comparison at all? Why not one of the Nordic countries which are much more like our country? Because they don’t fit the narrative.

 

And my apologies for the economist comment it is just because your opinions seem to be against the academic paradigm post neoliberalism.


There are loads of sources for poverty and inequality in this thread. Food bank usage is my favourite to use. However, obviously it’s a debate as to what is poverty and how it should be compared. I’ve reread my original post and my phrasing of that is perhaps an oversight so my apologies I was writing it at work haha

 

The Nordic countries aren't much more like our country at all than Venezuela economically (culturally they are of course).

 

Nordic countries are large countries with small population which won the lottery in terms of natural resources - much like Venezuela in fact.

 

Venezuela and the Nordics are far more comparable to each other (and other resource rich, smaller population nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Australia) than they are to us - the difference between, say, Norway and Venezuela is Norway - which was by far the poorest country in Western Europe in the mid 60s - until it very dodgily "claimed" (or arguably annexed) the North Sea in a move which Putin would be proud of - it then used its oil money - and bare in mind this is a nation of 5million people which was producing 1.6mil barrels a day of oil at its peak - to essentially set up a national savings account which could allow all its citizens for generations to never have to work a day in its life - and just used it to create a massive national pension account and the interest off that to invest and foreign companies and used that money just invested off the interest to fund its public sector and national industry - by Norwegian law, no one - not even the Norwegian government can touch this pension scheme - as it goes automatically to Norwegian citizens when they retire - but it's essentially the biggest single bank account in the world, even bigger than the Chinese government's investment fund (despite having a fraction of a fraction of the population) - so the interest is so huge they largely fund their national economy on that.

 

Compare that to Venezuela who wasted their oil jackpot on short-termist handouts to its citizens,  far too above-inflation public sector rises - putting too much money into its economy for not enough goods and services and basically making everyone want to work in the oil industry making other industries in the country get a drain of good labour, actively turning it into a single good economy.

 

Resources naturally expire, but the difference between Norway and Venezuela is the same story of one 2 people who won the lottery - one who put the money into a savings account for when they retire and used the interest from those savings to invest in other projects and one who blew all his money on lavish short-term spending on presents for his friends and family to try and prove how much he cared for them. Venezuela was always unsustainable and setting itself up for a fall when the oil money it was living off eventually ran out, Norway didnt.

 

That said, its just a story of one lottery winner vs another. Neither small-population density, resouce lottery winners in Venezuela or the Nordics (anymore than countries like Qatar are) very fruitful arguments or case studies for a pretty resource standard economy like the UK with a large population density.

 

Comparisons to somewhere like Japan, an island nation with similar resource and population density to ours, which has had both very positive effects of large government spending (I.e. the biggest economic boom in human history during the 70s) and both very negative effects of large government spending (I.e. the massive government debts and stagnant economy of the 00s and early 10s) are more worthwhile - or France or Germany which are the closest nations to ours in terms of culture, size and history- and are both struggling through similar economic issues to the UK in recent decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The Nordic countries aren't much more like our country at all than Venezuela economically (culturally they are of course).

 

Nordic countries are large countries with small population which won the lottery in terms of natural resources - much like Venezuela in fact.

 

Venezuela and the Nordics are far more comparable to each other (and other resource rich, smaller population nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Australia) than they are to us - the difference between, say, Norway and Venezuela is Norway - which was by far the poorest country in Western Europe in the mid 60s - until it very dodgily "claimed" (or arguably annexed) the North Sea in a move which Putin would be proud of - it then used its oil money - and bare in mind this is a nation of 5million people which was producing 1.6mil barrels a day of oil at its peak - to essentially set up a national savings account which could allow all its citizens for generations to never have to work a day in its life - and just used it to create a massive national pension account and the interest off that to invest and foreign companies and used that money just invested off the interest to fund its public sector and national industry - by Norwegian law, no one - not even the Norwegian government can touch this pension scheme - as it goes automatically to Norwegian citizens when they retire - but it's essentially the biggest single bank account in the world, even bigger than the Chinese government's investment fund (despite having a fraction of a fraction of the population) - so the interest is so huge they largely fund their national economy on that.

 

Compare that to Venezuela who wasted their oil jackpot on short-termist handouts to its citizens,  far too above-inflation public sector rises - putting too much money into its economy for not enough goods and services and basically making everyone want to work in the oil industry making other industries in the country get a drain of good labour, actively turning it into a single good economy.

 

Resources naturally expire, but the difference between Norway and Venezuela is the same story of one 2 people who won the lottery - one who put the money into a savings account for when they retire and used the interest from those savings to invest in other projects and one who blew all his money on lavish short-term spending on presents for his friends and family to try and prove how much he cared for them. Venezuela was always unsustainable and setting itself up for a fall when the oil money it was living off eventually ran out, Norway didnt.

 

That said, its just a story of one lottery winner vs another. Neither small-population density, resouce lottery winners in Venezuela or the Nordics (anymore than countries like Qatar are) very fruitful arguments or case studies for a pretty resource standard economy like the UK with a large population density.

 

Comparisons to somewhere like Japan, an island nation with similar resource and population density to ours, which has had both very positive effects of large government spending (I.e. the biggest economic boom in human history during the 70s) and both very negative effects of large government spending (I.e. the massive government debts and stagnant economy of the 00s and early 10s) are more worthwhile - or France or Germany which are the closest nations to ours in terms of culture, size and history- and are both struggling through similar economic issues to the UK in recent decades.

Totally fair - my point was more that Venezuela is a ridiculous comparison more than any other is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

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.

 

...well, I think we have a pretty fundamental disagreement on what we believe humans are capable of, then. You seem to use the history of human behaviour as a strict guide for the future (the fact that humans did establish pretty good communal structures before agriculture notwithstanding), which is rather darkly amusing considering how subjective a science sociology really is. If we were discussing, say, observational methods of distant stars using "standard candles" to figure out how far away they are then I might be onboard with using such data the next time I look at distant stars because that is an example of data analysis that isn't subjective.

 

I don't buy the idea that human behaviour has to be fixed and predictable, even over a large sample size over a large period of time, even if it may appear that there are patterns that repeat - it goes against everything I believe concerning free will. But I understand the need to defend what you study and what you do in economics (and by extension human behaviour) as a hard science.

 

Thank you for the additional information about Venezuela.

 

NB. I think I've said this before, but I'm not interested in human change out of some lofty moral utopian ideal - I'm interested in it because evolutionary scientific data implies that is the best and longest way for humanity and human civilisation to survive. That is the goal, no more, no less - if you're looking for practicality and utilitarianism, then survival as a whole is surely the most practical utilitarian goal of them all! If wanting that is somehow to be derided in some fashion, then so be it.

 

(Edit: I know you've said your own piece on that matter and it's basically "no one wants to live forever" depending on the situation, right? Well, yes, of course it's situational, but the way I see it as long as humanity and human civilisation survives there is a chance of it being run the "right" way - again, change is always possible as long as there is life.)

 

8 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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.

Thank you for the honesty, at least. I don't see the need myself, but I can see why other people do.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NasPb

NasPb

Posted
Posted

No disrespect to anyone on here, but corbyn simply isn't a marxist. He's a socialist but not a marxist. Those who call him that simply do not understand Marxism. He's not even close to being revolutionary in any sense. Let's please not turn this into US politics with incorrect name calling. You can critique corbyn all you want, but frankly he's not a marxist. Call his policies out, i don't care, but don't go around using incorrect terminology. 

PS, for anyone anti conservative (ie labour, lib dems etc) vote tactically if you live in a marginal seat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, NasPb said:

No disrespect to anyone on here, but corbyn simply isn't a marxist. He's a socialist but not a marxist. Those who call him that simply do not understand Marxism. He's not even close to being revolutionary in any sense. Let's please not turn this into US politics with incorrect name calling. You can critique corbyn all you want, but frankly he's not a marxist. Call his policies out, i don't care, but don't go around using incorrect terminology. 

PS, for anyone anti conservative (ie labour, lib dems etc) vote tactically if you live in a marginal seat 

It's hard to understand how he managed to get himself caught up in these allegations isnt it?

 

 

corbyn.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WigstonWanderer

WigstonWanderer

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Babylon said:

The amount of bots on twitter spreading shite is absolutely frightening.

 

Whether Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, people should be worried because the impact they are going to have now and in the future is massive. 

 

Politics is in the absolute gutter.

 

 

Not sure what democracy is worth when people can be manipulated like this. The MSM should be all over this but only seem to mention it tangentially. Mostly seems to be coming from the Tories as expected given the Cummings effect during the referendum, but I’d condemn it whoever is involved.

 

People will need to learn how to filter out this sort of nonsense, but it’s practically impossible even for more astute observers.

Edited by WigstonWanderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Madness to think that Labour could lose seats from 2017 yet will celebrate "victory" by stopping the Tories getting a majority again.

How has it got so bad for them that they're not even in the ballpark for a majority after nine years in opposition?

Because apparently as a nation we've lost all interest in credibility to the point that we now actively revere compulsive liars who are only in politics out of self-interest.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

The impact of tactical voting is incredible if the MRP is correct

2001

Labour 40.7%

Conservative 31.7%

 

Labour Majority 167

 

2019 (MRP)

 

Conservative 43%

Labour 34%

 

Tory Majority 28 - possible hung parliament.

 

Shout out to Plaid as well who will be getting 4 seats on 0% of the vote when rounded up.

 

If we do get a hung parliament from this the argument for PR will be unavoidable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Oxlong

Mike Oxlong

Posted
Posted

Some trivia from the bbc about voting - 


- The punishment for revealing how another person voted - even accidentally - is up to £5,000, or six months in prison.


- You are not allowed to photograph the ballot paper you receive in a polling station - but you can snap your postal ballot paper, because electoral law treats them differently.


- Can I spoil my ballot paper?
Yes. Some people spoil their votes as a protest vote. These do not count towards any candidate, but are recorded.
Only 0.2% of votes were rejected for being invalid at the 2017 general election.


- Are pets allowed in polling stations?
Animals, apart from assistance dogs, are not usually allowed inside polling stations.


- Can you wear political clothing?
The Electoral Commission says there is nothing in law to prevent you from wearing a slogan going into a polling station, with the intention of voting. 
You should, however, leave immediately afterwards as campaigning inside polling stations is not permitted, and this could be seen as doing just that.


- Suppose you've been drinking - can you still vote?
Yes. You can vote if you are drunk or under the influence of drugs, unless you are disruptive. stations?

 

 

 

i didn’t know that you could be sent to prison for revealing how another person voted 
 

Perhaps a journo could ask Boris this on the evening of polling day

 

Q. After your recent relationship difficulties did Ms Simmonds vote for you Boris ? 

 

A. Yes of course she did. She wants to get Brexit done
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ealingfox

ealingfox

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Some trivia from the bbc about voting - 


- The punishment for revealing how another person voted - even accidentally - is up to £5,000, or six months in prison.


- You are not allowed to photograph the ballot paper you receive in a polling station - but you can snap your postal ballot paper, because electoral law treats them differently.


- Can I spoil my ballot paper?
Yes. Some people spoil their votes as a protest vote. These do not count towards any candidate, but are recorded.
Only 0.2% of votes were rejected for being invalid at the 2017 general election.


- Are pets allowed in polling stations?
Animals, apart from assistance dogs, are not usually allowed inside polling stations.


- Can you wear political clothing?
The Electoral Commission says there is nothing in law to prevent you from wearing a slogan going into a polling station, with the intention of voting. 
You should, however, leave immediately afterwards as campaigning inside polling stations is not permitted, and this could be seen as doing just that.


- Suppose you've been drinking - can you still vote?
Yes. You can vote if you are drunk or under the influence of drugs, unless you are disruptive. stations?

 

 

 

i didn’t know that you could be sent to prison for revealing how another person voted 
 

Perhaps a journo could ask Boris this on the evening of polling day

 

Q. After your recent relationship difficulties did Ms Simmonds vote for you Boris ? 

 

A. Yes of course she did. She wants to get Brexit done
 

 

 

Strictly speaking you arent allowed to take photos inside the station at all. However as with most of these rules they aren't strictly enforced and I expect prosecutions for these offences are incredibly rare even though there are hundreds of instances of them up and down the country at every election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...