FT General Election Poll 2019

[Jon the Hat]

21 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

And Those around Boris are of a high calibre?

They are rather more seasoned politicians certainly.  I also expect others to come back into the fold in a new cabinet.  Do you not recall how we ended up with the shadow front bench?  He started out with the competent ones, and they all quit.  And then so did their replacements.  Apart from Dianne Abbot who thinks Chairman Mao did more good than bad (45Millon dead), and John McDonnell who basically wants to steal everything from anyone who has any assets.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

I think a system that only allows illegal immigrants to vote would be best.

It would certainly be an effective way to get them all in the back of a Border Force van.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Seems to me that this was what created the affordable housing issue at the first place. Thatcher flogged off the council housing stock to those who happened to be the current occupiers in a sort of bizarre lottery. Who’d have guessed that this would lead to a shortage of cheap housing for those who came after? (Yes, I am being sarcastic).

I hate to point this out, but when we sold the houses to them, they did actually continue living in them.  The houses kept actually housing people, they didn't disappear.  Now you would be correct to say successive governments have failed to ensure enough houses are built to keep up with changing demographics and a growing population, but that has sod all to do with selling through right to buy.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, FerrisBueller said:

Apparently the decision to block the Russia report rests entirely on Boris. Even tom Tugendhat is calling for it to be released.

A deafening silence from the people who have been banging on about democracy for the last 3 years.

 

THIS IS A COVER UP 

Maybe they think we have enough distractions without debating whether twitter bots are swaying the election?  Who knows.  Generally though anything Demonic Grieve is shouting about is against my interests

[Alf Bentley]

28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Such a pessimistic view of the future - I see no good reason why we shouldn't have a perfectly good trade deal with Europe that suits both sides by the end of 2020.  Conservatives are the party of business, and with proper leadership and strategy I trust that we will get that deal, and also that Boris wants it.  How on earth would it be in anyone interests to break the econony?  I don't see the logic of trusting Corbyn will be constrained by his party and parliament not to do daft things, but Boris will have free reign to turn us into the 51st state with no employment rights and screwed economy.

 

I'm very pessimistic about the future with a Tory majority govt & Hard Brexit. Funny enough, you seem very pessimistic about the future under a Labour govt & EU membership. 

 

Most trade deals take years to negotiate. A deal that kept us closely aligned with the EU could be done much quicker. But Tory policy seems to be to diverge to a large extent - note movement of employment protections from binding WA to non-binding Political Declaration. Any deal involving major divergence will be very complex - and the EU will fiercely defend themselves against the prospect of the UK seeking to compete by undercutting them on standards, rights & regulations - creating "Singapore-on-Thames". Hence why I think any deal would take a long time.....and I'm not sure Tory MPs, members or voters will be on for a transition period lasting several years, hence the distinct possibility of No Deal in Dec. 2020 as we have to ask for any extension to transition by June, I think.

 

28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

Who around Corbyn is high calibre exactly?  They seem like a bunch of idiots!

 

Matter of opinion, of course. I'd see Starmer, McDonnell, Long-Bailey & Thornberry as somewhere between decent and high calibre. Admittedly there are some chumps like Abbott and that bloke from Leeds.

I'm sure you disagree.....but then I'd see a lot of Tory ministers as chumps, too, who you might see as superstars. 

 

28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

On your point around discounted property, I have no issue with right to buy from long term public sector tenants - but forcing the same on private landlords without compensation to marker value would be theft no?  Spending treasury money is a power we give to our government, even though it is our money.  Taking from indivuduals to give directly to others is stealing and would destroy a large section of the rental market overnight.  If I owner a rental property I would leave it empty rather than let it under a Corbyn government.  Maybe destruction of the housing market is what they want to achieve?

 

 

So, you do see it as OK for private individuals/firms to "steal" part of the value of public assets (via Tory right to buy council houses at discount), but wrong for such individuals to "steal" part of the value of private assets (via Labour's right to buy private property at discount).... 

 

If landlords responded as you suggest, I hope that a Labour govt would institute compulsory purchase of empty private rental properties at a fraction of their true value. 

 

24 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Again why do you think our Parliament should not decide on our employment rights?  Do you not think any move to take them away would lead to a landslide majority Labour win?  That is the point - stop trying to give someone else the decision making powers!  They might also decide to create a European army (See Macron in the economist saying we cannot rely on the US in NATO anymore) and give someone else control of our nuclear weapons - If we even have any with Corbyn in charge,

 

Who should decide on employment rights is a different issue. The argument for harmonization across the EU is to avoid unfair competition via a race to the bottom on rights & standards (which I expect to now be Tory policy).

 

Maybe removing such rights would lead to a landslide Labour govt (in 5 years, long time). Alternatively, maybe the vast coffers of the corporations benefiting from the elimination of such rights would help the Tories persuade the public that this was necessary or inevitable? Or maybe those angered at the loss of their rights would retreat from the democratic process into passivity or anti-democratic politics - or turn on scapegoats such as foreigners via a rise in the Far Right. Who knows?

 

Too busy to get into European armies and nukes just now, but Trump wants Europe to take more responsibility for foreign/defence expenditure, doesn't he?

 

Sorry, got to withdraw for a few hours now. Real life intervenes! 

[FerrisBueller]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Maybe they think we have enough distractions without debating whether twitter bots are swaying the election?  Who knows.  Generally though anything Demonic Grieve is shouting about is against my interests

It's not just about twitter bots though, the report covers all aspects of Russian interference. It's clear as day he's got something to hide, the report is ready for release and he has personally blocked it.

Do you not think if there is foreign interference in our politics, that potentially (or evidently quite obviously) involves the current PM, the people should be informed prior to a General Election?

[WigstonWanderer]

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I hate to point this out, but when we sold the houses to them, they did actually continue living in them.  The houses kept actually housing people, they didn't disappear.  Now you would be correct to say successive governments have failed to ensure enough houses are built to keep up with changing demographics and a growing population, but that has sod all to do with selling through right to buy.

Yes, but they ceased to be available to those who came after who needed affordable housing.

[Guest MattP]

48 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Even if we ignore his willingness to indulge in socially illiberal rhetoric about "tank-topped bum boys", "watermelon smiles" and "letterbox" Muslim women and accept that he's socially liberal....

 

It's possible to be socially liberal but hard right on economic / socioeconomic policy.

 

I'm not sure whether or not that is his ideological inclination, as I'd see him as motivated more by personal power, ego and narcissism.

But it's certainly the inclination of a growing number in his cabinet, parliamentary party and wider party. Plus, a Hard Brexit brings an in-built economic pressure to move in that direction.

 

Terminology can confuse issues, but it's very possible that he could be a socially liberal PM but hard right on economic/socioeconomic policy - either by inclination, influence or force of circumstance.

You might be right, but I'm not exactly seeing any hard right economics either at the minute, so far the playbook appears to resemble a hard left economic policy than hard right, I do find the desie to paint Boris as "hard right" as quite strange based a few articles instead of actual policy, but as I say, I think it's more politically motivated than anything.

If you want a proper hard-right Tory there are plenty to go at - Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey....but Boris really isn't one of them.

[WigstonWanderer]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

You might be right, but I'm not exactly seeing any hard right economics either at the minute, so far the playbook appears to resemble a hard left economic policy than hard right, I do find the desie to paint Boris as "hard right" as quite strange based a few articles instead of actual policy, but as I say, I think it's more politically motivated than anything.

If you want a proper hard-right Tory there are plenty to go at - Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey....but Boris really isn't one of them.

I think he’s more hard Boris than anything.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

You might be right, but I'm not exactly seeing any hard right economics either at the minute, so far the playbook appears to resemble a hard left economic policy than hard right, I do find the desie to paint Boris as "hard right" as quite strange based a few articles instead of actual policy, but as I say, I think it's more politically motivated than anything.

If you want a proper hard-right Tory there are plenty to go at - Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Esther McVey....but Boris really isn't one of them.

 

Granted, he's offering pre-electoral goodies - and may actually provide them post-election.

 

He also had various employment rights moved from the binding WA to the non-binding Political Declaration, whereas May's Deal had them in the WA....and the hard-right ministers you've named have come back under his leadership, haven't they?

 

Gotta go!

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Granted, he's offering pre-electoral goodies - and may actually provide them post-election.

 

He also had various employment rights moved from the binding WA to the non-binding Political Declaration, whereas May's Deal had them in the WA....and the hard-right ministers you've named have come back under his leadership, haven't they?

 

Gotta go!

They have, but I think that's more to do with wanting a Brexit cabinet than a desire to go "hard-right".

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

The Jewish community obviously feel very strongly about Corbyn as PM. At the same time, the Conservative party seem determined to burn all bridges with our European allies and threaten stability in the UK. Swinson is a narcissist and not particularly liberal, though arguably not as dangerous as the other two. 

Depressing as fvck. Almost glad I live in a very safe Tory constituency so I don't have any difficult decisions to make. 

I think "feel strongly" is an understatement. Look at the front page of the Jewish Chronicle - they are now pleading with people not to vote for him.

 

[bovril]

Just now, MattP said:

I think "feel strongly" is an understatement. Look at the front page of the Jewish Chronicle - they are now pleading with people not to vote for him.

 

 

Yeah I saw that this morning. 

[StanSP]

42 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Maybe they think we have enough distractions without debating whether twitter bots are swaying the election?  Who knows.  Generally though anything Demonic Grieve is shouting about is against my interests

Yeah but surely something so important such as Russian interference is a huge thing to disclose to the public. Covering it up, conveniently, until after an election is decided, smacks of hiding something. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence is either in denial or giving too much benefit of the doubt to them.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Yeah but surely something so important such as Russian interference is a huge thing to disclose to the public. Covering it up, conveniently, until after an election is decided, smacks of hiding something. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence is either in denial or giving too much benefit of the doubt to them.

Jon has said in the past that he's pretty much OK with electronic "research" of the Cambridge Analytica kind anyway as it's just a weapon that can be utilised by either side, IIRC.

[RoboFox]

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-blocked-russian-interference-report-kremlin-link-conservative-donors-2019-11?r=US&IR=T

 

"Embarrassing" has apparently become a euphemism for "illegal and / or morally bankrupt"

 

BUT hey, ho... As long as the Tories keep trumpeting their patriotic credentials, they will be allowed by the electorate to get away with engaging in acts of traitorous corruption.

 

Unfortunately, the Russian interference thing will be forgotten about in the coming weeks.

 

Never mind. As long As they keep the foreigners out, hey?

 

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Jon has said in the past that he's pretty much OK with electronic "research" of the Cambridge Analytica kind anyway as it's just a weapon that can be utilised by either side, IIRC.

To be honest that sort of electronic research was absolutely fine with everybody, not just Jon, when it was being used by people like Obama and Merkel.

 

It only became a problem when it started being used by the wrong "winners" in democratic votes. 

[Jon the Hat]

15 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

 

 Thanks for engaging.

I kinda hoped that we might find a tory that wanted to talk about tory policies but at least you've taken the first step towards policy debate I suppose.

We can't debate five policies at once so which unfounded claim shall we start with?

Beaten to it!

[Jon the Hat]

42 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Yeah but surely something so important such as Russian interference is a huge thing to disclose to the public. Covering it up, conveniently, until after an election is decided, smacks of hiding something. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence is either in denial or giving too much benefit of the doubt to them.

 

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Jon has said in the past that he's pretty much OK with electronic "research" of the Cambridge Analytica kind anyway as it's just a weapon that can be utilised by either side, IIRC.

The people willingly and knowingly give their information.  If smart politicians use it then good luck to them.

[FerrisBueller]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

To be honest that sort of electronic research was absolutely fine with everybody, not just Jon, when it was being used by people like Obama and Merkel.

 

It only became a problem when it started being used by the wrong "winners" in democratic votes. 

I think it's the way it was utilised, they micro-targeted 'suggestible' people on social media and filled their feed with either straight up lies or massively misleading content.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, FerrisBueller said:

I think it's the way it was utilised, they micro-targeted 'suggestible' people on social media and filled their feed with either straight up lies or massively misleading content.

Which is pretty much what every party and candidate does through leafleting at every election isn't it?

 

I don't know why people find this so offensive just because it's on social media.

[bovril]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

To be honest that sort of electronic research was absolutely fine with everybody, not just Jon, when it was being used by people like Obama and Merkel.

 

It only became a problem when it started being used by the wrong "winners" in democratic votes. 

Any evidence for this? 

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Beaten to it!

I've read that publication numerous times in the past year and a half and it basically says the same as whats written in that article on a daily basis.

 

Whilst the article may have truth in it somewhere, the standard of journalism and the depth of detail is absolute dogshit in terms of journalistic integrity - It's not really much better than the Sun.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

Any evidence for this? 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/

[Guest MattP]

Jewish Chronicle getting booed at the Labour campaign event by the crowd

 

The journalists shouldn't be letting Corbyn get away with this questions in bunches charade either, just let's him ignore the ones he doesn't want to answer.