FT General Election Poll 2019

[Beechey]

 

Bloody hell

[Guest MattP]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

In case he denies Boris a majority, thereby thwarting Brexit? 

 

Brexit suits Putin's interests just as its suits Trump's interests - weakens the EU as an economic bloc, isolates the UK, potentially undermines foreign policy alliances in the West, fragments rivals & thereby strengthes the position of Russia/USA, respectively. Trump more interested in the economic weakening of the EU, Putin more interested in dividing foreign/defence alliances in the West, I'd guess.

 

Might have been nothing to do with state or state-associated actors, of course. Might have been amateur teenage hackers or Alt Right weirdos or something. Or maybe Labour is talking up a minor incident after Boris' refusal to publish the report on previous Russian interventions, as a means of pushing that up the election agenda? 

Last paragraph is a pretty good point, very possible as the Russia traction hasn't gotten as much attention as it probably should with Boris sat on the report. 

 

I don't deny Putin would prefer Brexit, but the Brexit we pursue should be one that retains the closest relationship possible with Europe in terms of things like security.

 

He would surely still prefer Corbyn though? It would quite something for Britain to elect an PM who had previously called for NATO to be shut down and viewed it as an aggressive organisation intended to provoke the Soviets. We'd have a Prime Minister who once had a regular slot on Russia Today

 

Just look at some of the things Seamus Milne wrote in the Guardian - it would be the most Russian friendly operation our government has ever been.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/moscow-mules-the-lefts-long-romance-with-russia-brqp5cw2v

[Mike Oxlong]

All this foreign interference shit is a bit far fetched isn’t it ?

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Last paragraph is a pretty good point, very possible as the Russia traction hasn't gotten as much attention as it probably should with Boris sat on the report. 

 

I don't deny Putin would prefer Brexit, but the Brexit we pursue should be one that retains the closest relationship possible with Europe in terms of things like security.

 

He would surely still prefer Corbyn though? It would quite something for Britain to elect an PM who had previously called for NATO to be shut down and viewed it as an aggressive organisation intended to provoke the Soviets. We'd have a Prime Minister who once had a regular slot on Russia Today

 

Just look at some of the things Seamus Milne wrote in the Guardian - it would be the most Russian friendly operation our government has ever been.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/moscow-mules-the-lefts-long-romance-with-russia-brqp5cw2v

 

Closest possible security relationship with Europe might be hard to maintain if, post-Brexit, we're trying to undermine them economically, competing for trade via a race to the bottom on workers' rights, consumer standards & environmental protection. That seems to be the way the Boris-Nigel axis wants to go, judging from how Boris shifted certain items to the non-binding Political Declaration and commits not to extend the transition period......though he might sell out Nigel & the ERG, as he's sold out everyone else..... If a Tory majority govt does try to build Singapore-on-Thames on England's green and pleasant land, our European alliances could get a bit frosty. I suppose we could always offer to suck up Trump's trade demands in exchange for defence protection?

 

Oh, I know Corbyn's said plenty of stupid things on foreign policy. He's a kneejerk hard leftist and anti-American by instinct and his instinct is to see the Yanks/Israelis as the baddies in any given situation & to believe their enemies. I'm not sure he'd have much time for Putin, though, even if in the 1970s he took Diane Abbott to the South of France on an East German motorbike - or on a tour of East Germany, depending on which paper you believe. 

 

Mind you, as you say, there is the little matter of Boris sitting on a report into Russian election/referendum interference. This is said to examine, among other things, Russian business people donating eye-watering sums to the Tory party. Milne seems to have some dodgy views.....but I wonder if his Russian connections are as good as Boris' adviser's? Amazing how little attention the media has paid to the fact that Dominic Cummings lived and ran businesses in Russia for 3 years during the 1990s? I wonder if he met Vlad, while he was there? 

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Beechey said:

 

Bloody hell

Blimey

 

 

 

And wtf are the Lib Dems going to do with little bit of Northern Scotland dominance??!! 

Edited 12 November 2019 by Milo

[Mike Oxlong]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/revealed-conservative-councillors-islamophobic-social-media?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

This bit particularly stood out

 

In 2017, one councillor, who has been pictured with Johnson, endorsed a suggestion that all aid to Africa helping feed starving people should stop, allowing “mother nature take her course”. She replied: “It’s nature’s way of depopulation.”

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

This isn't an anti-Brexit post, more an anti-laziness post.....

 

Why do so many voters parrot this line that we should "get Brexit done" or "get Brexit over with"?

As if it was just a boring distraction from evening TV or Facebook posts & not the biggest change to our country for decades.....were people the same about WW2 or the Cuban missile crisis...."let's get it done and over with"? 

 

Some people argue that Brexit or Hard Brexit or No Deal Brexit is a good idea for such-and-such a reason. I disagree with them, but can respect that. They have different political aims to me - or assess the social/economic consequences or long-term benefits & disadvantages differently. Fine. We can debate that - and inevitably agree to disagree! 

 

But whatever the future brings (unless the Lib Dems win a majority & revoke), the Brexit process will go on for years, won't it? Either negotiations or consequences or both...

Talking of the Withdrawal Agreement as "getting Brexit done" is dishonest manipulation by politicians - and sheer mental laziness by voters. It's not as if it's a difficult, technical thing to understand

 

Sure, if the Tories win a majority, we're likely to formally leave the EU on 31st Jan. The divorce settlement, citizens' rights and border in the Irish Sea will all be agreed....

But we'll then just be in an 11-month transition period (effectively under EU rules but with no say over them) - and starting the main part of the Brexit negotiations re. the future UK-EU relationship.

 

To use someone else's metaphor, in terms of "getting the project done", if the project were to move to a new house, we'll have demolished the old house but not yet drawn up proper plans for the new house, never mind built it.

 

Am I right in thinking these are the future options under a Boris Majority (in approximate order of likelihood, given Boris-ERG-Nigel policy preferences):

- Tory Govt wants to be able to diverge from EU rights, regulations & standards to a large extent, so a very limited future relationship/trade agreement is signed, allowing our septic isle great freedom in its isolation at the cost of major tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, serious economic/social damage & a seriously frosty, limited relationship with the EU on other policy areas

- Tory Govt wants to be able to diverge, but the EU are wary of a Singapore-on-Thames race to the bottom, so no deal is signed. Boris keeps his word not to extend the transition period & we leave with No Deal (apart from WA) in Dec. 2020.....cue short-term chaos & major medium-term damage to UK economy, trade, business, tax revenues, public spending & social cohesion.....even allowing for the extra time to prepare for No Deal

- Boris seeks to negotiate a closer relationship, including compromises on trade regulations, tariffs, standards etc. Inevitably this takes longer than a year. He goes back on his word & extends the transition....but would his MPs let him? And what would voters make of us effectively staying under EU rules, paying into EU coffers but having no say over EU decisions.....for however many years?

- Boris realises (or maybe already knows) that Hard Brexit/No Deal will be very damaging, but now has room for manoeuvre so sells out his Hard Brexiteers & does a parliamentary deal with other parties to stay in the Single Market/Customs Union & fairly close alignment with EU, but as non-members?

- EU capitulates and offers the UK great terms on tariff and non-tariff barriers & everything else, despite UK intending to diverge on standards, regulations etc.

(Just looking at EU-UK there - obviously stuff like a trade deal with Trump might also be in the pipeline, but on what terms.....)

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Beechey said:

Bloody hell

 

Blimey, that makes great reading.....

 

Farage's tactical semi-withdrawal has had an immediate impact, then. Lost 60% of his vote overnight! 

 

He won't be able to talk seriously about winning Labour Leave seats in the North, unless that's a rogue poll.

[Guest Eamonn]

On 07/11/2019 at 11:47, twoleftfeet said:

PR -who do you go to when you have a local issue as currently the local MP is supposed to represent the locals (hasn't happened with Brexit ).

AV - bit more difficult perhaps several votes over a couple of days to whittle it down to two candidates to give a binary vote could work and new tech could make results pretty instant do away with the hours of counting bits of paper (although would take away my ability to draw Soyuncu's massive cock on the ballot form.) but may lead to boredom in the electorate.

Would like to current system kept but the Lords turned into a second chamber based on PR with the  ability to block legislation even if it is in the winning parties manifesto.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE END OF FEAR POLITICS stop telling me why not to elect the opposition and why I should elect you.

If you had a PR system where one big constituency elected several MPs you'd still have a local link. You'd also be less likely to be stuck with somone you disagree with as there'd be a few to choose from.

 

I live in Sheffield.  We'd probably elect 3 Labour, 1 Green, 1 Lib Dem. I've been stuck with hopeless Jared O'Mara for 2 years. A PR system would have given me other representation.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 hours ago, Beechey said:

"I'll wait for Survation."
"YouGov are Tory b*stards."

[HappyHamza]

4 hours ago, Beechey said:

 

 

I still expect the lib dems to fall away when labour release their manifesto - because the libs are soft Tories these days - and when people  that are looking at them against labour finally realise voting lib dems means getting tory. 

 

That said there'll be plenty of tactical voting too.

 

If Boris does get a big majority it might end up being the last Tory government the mess he'll make of things. 

[ealingfox]

12 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

"I'll wait for Survation."
"YouGov are Tory b*stards."

 

Since you asked

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Since you asked

 

 

 

 

.........................

[Dirkster the Fox]

 

Stasi anyone?

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

 

Stasi anyone?

 

The media changes, the attitudes evidently don't.

 

(And I say that as someone who thinks JC is a bloody idiot often.)

[Guest MattP]

[Guest MattP]

The new candidate (MP effectively) for Leicester West sounds impressive.

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ken-livingstone-defender-claudia-webbe-selected-as-candidate-for-leicester-east-1.493044

 

Edited 13 November 2019 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

This isn't an anti-Brexit post, more an anti-laziness post.....

 

Why do so many voters parrot this line that we should "get Brexit done" or "get Brexit over with"?

As if it was just a boring distraction from evening TV or Facebook posts & not the biggest change to our country for decades.....were people the same about WW2 or the Cuban missile crisis...."let's get it done and over with"? 

 

Some people argue that Brexit or Hard Brexit or No Deal Brexit is a good idea for such-and-such a reason. I disagree with them, but can respect that. They have different political aims to me - or assess the social/economic consequences or long-term benefits & disadvantages differently. Fine. We can debate that - and inevitably agree to disagree! 

 

But whatever the future brings (unless the Lib Dems win a majority & revoke), the Brexit process will go on for years, won't it? Either negotiations or consequences or both...

Talking of the Withdrawal Agreement as "getting Brexit done" is dishonest manipulation by politicians - and sheer mental laziness by voters. It's not as if it's a difficult, technical thing to understand

 

Sure, if the Tories win a majority, we're likely to formally leave the EU on 31st Jan. The divorce settlement, citizens' rights and border in the Irish Sea will all be agreed....

But we'll then just be in an 11-month transition period (effectively under EU rules but with no say over them) - and starting the main part of the Brexit negotiations re. the future UK-EU relationship.

 

To use someone else's metaphor, in terms of "getting the project done", if the project were to move to a new house, we'll have demolished the old house but not yet drawn up proper plans for the new house, never mind built it.

 

Am I right in thinking these are the future options under a Boris Majority (in approximate order of likelihood, given Boris-ERG-Nigel policy preferences):

- Tory Govt wants to be able to diverge from EU rights, regulations & standards to a large extent, so a very limited future relationship/trade agreement is signed, allowing our septic isle great freedom in its isolation at the cost of major tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, serious economic/social damage & a seriously frosty, limited relationship with the EU on other policy areas

- Tory Govt wants to be able to diverge, but the EU are wary of a Singapore-on-Thames race to the bottom, so no deal is signed. Boris keeps his word not to extend the transition period & we leave with No Deal (apart from WA) in Dec. 2020.....cue short-term chaos & major medium-term damage to UK economy, trade, business, tax revenues, public spending & social cohesion.....even allowing for the extra time to prepare for No Deal

- Boris seeks to negotiate a closer relationship, including compromises on trade regulations, tariffs, standards etc. Inevitably this takes longer than a year. He goes back on his word & extends the transition....but would his MPs let him? And what would voters make of us effectively staying under EU rules, paying into EU coffers but having no say over EU decisions.....for however many years?

- Boris realises (or maybe already knows) that Hard Brexit/No Deal will be very damaging, but now has room for manoeuvre so sells out his Hard Brexiteers & does a parliamentary deal with other parties to stay in the Single Market/Customs Union & fairly close alignment with EU, but as non-members?

- EU capitulates and offers the UK great terms on tariff and non-tariff barriers & everything else, despite UK intending to diverge on standards, regulations etc.

(Just looking at EU-UK there - obviously stuff like a trade deal with Trump might also be in the pipeline, but on what terms.....)

I think it's simply the act of getting it done that has now become symbolic - which is understandable given we voted to leave in 2016 and still haven't done so by the year of 2020.

 

I don't buy into all the regulation slashing as I doubt the Tories want to lose the next election - unless the EU become total bastards in the trade negotiation and seek to serious punish us I don't see any need for us to turn into a Singapore on Sea. 

[David Guiza]

Gaukward comments for Boris to deal with this morning. 

[The Guvnor]

11 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Gaukward comments for Boris to deal with this morning. 

Disgruntled staunch remainer bemoans the prospect of leaving the EU shocker.

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

Disgruntled staunch remainer bemoans the prospect of leaving the EU shocker.

The press managed to get a good few days out of Ian Austin's comments, not sure how this is different. 

 

Ken Clarke, Alan Duncan, Anne Milton, Philip Hammond, Rory Stewart and David Liddington have all said similar too with regards to Boris, but of course that doesn't matter because they would say that. 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

14 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Blimey, that makes great reading.....

 

Farage's tactical semi-withdrawal has had an immediate impact, then. Lost 60% of his vote overnight! 

 

He won't be able to talk seriously about winning Labour Leave seats in the North, unless that's a rogue poll.

Isn’t that just because anyone living in a Tory constituency now won’t have the option to vote Brexit as there won’t be a candidate. So if pollsters ask such a person who they will vote for, anyone who would have said Brexit will now probably say Tory.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I think it's simply the act of getting it done that has now become symbolic - which is understandable given we voted to leave in 2016 and still haven't done so by the year of 2020.

 

I don't buy into all the regulation slashing as I doubt the Tories want to lose the next election - unless the EU become total bastards in the trade negotiation and seek to serious punish us I don't see any need for us to turn into a Singapore on Sea. 

 

I take your point in your first sentence. People are also, quite reasonably, frustrated that the govt hasn't been able to get on with much else, due to the domination of Brexit.

They are also simply bored with hearing about it - but unfortunately the truth is that they'll have to put up with that continuing, probably for several years (negotiations or consequences).

 

Boris changed Tory policy so as to be able to diverge significantly from EU regulations/standards post-transition, isn't it?

Otherwise, why did Boris negotiate to have commitments to a level playing field on standards moved into the non-binding Political Declaration, when they were in the binding Withdrawal Agreement under May's Deal?

 

Then there's the little matter of Boris promising Farage & the nation there'll be no extension to the 11-month transition period......

He wants a Canada-style trade deal. Well, negotiations on the Canada-EU deal started in 2009, were agreed in principle in 2014 & are being provisionally implemented in 2019....a bit more than 11 months!

Yes, a bit quicker might be possible for the UK, but a lot quicker would only be possible if we remained closely aligned - not the Tory intention - or if the EU utterly capitulated, which it would be naive to expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

 

Good to see you getting your excuses in early at the end, though, re. the EU becoming "total bastards". 

This will undoubtedly be the Tory PR when the EU doesn't agree to allow us to diverge significantly on standards while still having access to a very close trading relationship.....

Our exit with no deal or only a skeleton deal & distant relationship will be "all the fault of the intransigent EU" and not unreasonable UK demands....."forcing the UK Govt" to compete by shafting its own people.

[Alf Bentley]

If anyone thinks that last post was just the wild dreams of a crazed Lefty, here's the right-wing Spectator on changes in Boris' deal: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/10/boris-johnsons-brexit-deal-eight-key-changes/

 

"Level Playing Field: major change

Binding commitments for the whole UK to maintain minimum standards in the areas of social and environmental policy, tax, competition and state aid have been removed from the Withdrawal Agreement. The only level-playing field commitments in the Protocol apply to Northern Ireland alone, and even here are only on state aid. This does not mean there will be no level-playing field commitments. The difference is that these will now be negotiated as part of the future relationship, and will be linked to the level of market access (a closer relationship means more obligations)"

 

It could be argued that the Tories will negotiate a closer UK-EU relationship and accept a lot of obligations/alignment.....but all the evidence points to them wanting large-scale divergence, fewer obligations - and therefore having to accept a more distant EU-UK relationship.

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Otherwise, why did Boris negotiate to have commitments to a level playing field on standards moved into the non-binding Political Declaration, when they were in the binding Withdrawal Agreement under May's Deal?

Maybe because he's not a moron. Why write something into law when they can be used in negotiations. Like no deal, I highly expect the eu doesn't want a deregulated nation off their shores. 

 

I know some people want nice and friendly sfw  negotiations, but the fact is it's gonna be a shitshow. Any sort of leverage we can find should be held onto and not spaffed away like May tried to do.