FT General Election Poll 2019

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

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. 

 

So, in negotiations, the UK will threaten to eliminate "minimum standards in social/environmental policy, tax, competition & state aid" so as to force the EU to agree greater market access in exchange for maintaining standards?

When the EU wants greater market access on both sides - to the extent that it didn't want the UK to leave the EU & Single Market at all?

 

Will the EU, a bloc that is several times bigger and more economically powerful than the UK, give in to these threats - and agree to the mutual market access that it wants anyway, but without a "level playing field" on standards? 

Did threats that the EU could "whistle for" its divorce settlement work well?  Did the UK's refusal to accept a border in the Irish Sea work well? It's like some macho imbecile swaggering into a pub and telling a dozen blokes: "I'll take you all on!"

 

Plus, the Tory argument is always that a threat needs to be credible to work. So, would Boris be prepared to slash social/environmental standards, corporate tax & the regulation of competition & state aid, so as to allow UK-based firms (many of them global corporations) to compete in the EU market by shafting the British people and British nation? Despite the high tariff/regulatory barriers the EU would maintain? If not, the threat has no credibility. But if the Tories would do that to our country - and I believe they would - that's pretty alarming.

 

With the expulsion of moderate Tories, the changes made to Boris' deal & his promises not to extend the transition period, it's clear to me that a majority Tory Govt would be led by the nose by its increasingly ERG-dominated parliamentary party & extensively UKIP-infiltrated membership. The plan is to leave with either No Deal or a skeleton deal / distant relationship, precisely so as to establish a deregulated nation off the shores of Europe, shafting the British people so as to serve the interests of Big Capital. As Matt's post suggests, the PR cover will be that the intransigent EU became "total bastards" in not accepting widespread UK deregulation AND good UK access to EU markets.... 

[ScouseFox]

roughly how many people are going to vote in this election? 

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

So, in negotiations, the UK will threaten to eliminate "minimum standards in social/environmental policy, tax, competition & state aid" so as to force the EU to agree greater market access in exchange for maintaining standards?

When the EU wants greater market access on both sides - to the extent that it didn't want the UK to leave the EU & Single Market at all?

 

Will the EU, a bloc that is several times bigger and more economically powerful than the UK, give in to these threats - and agree to the mutual market access that it wants anyway, but without a "level playing field" on standards? 

Did threats that the EU could "whistle for" its divorce settlement work well?  Did the UK's refusal to accept a border in the Irish Sea work well? It's like some macho imbecile swaggering into a pub and telling a dozen blokes: "I'll take you all on!"

 

Plus, the Tory argument is always that a threat needs to be credible to work. So, would Boris be prepared to slash social/environmental standards, corporate tax & the regulation of competition & state aid, so as to allow UK-based firms (many of them global corporations) to compete in the EU market by shafting the British people and British nation? Despite the high tariff/regulatory barriers the EU would maintain? If not, the threat has no credibility. But if the Tories would do that to our country - and I believe they would - that's pretty alarming.

 

With the expulsion of moderate Tories, the changes made to Boris' deal & his promises not to extend the transition period, it's clear to me that a majority Tory Govt would be led by the nose by its increasingly ERG-dominated parliamentary party & extensively UKIP-infiltrated membership. The plan is to leave with either No Deal or a skeleton deal / distant relationship, precisely so as to establish a deregulated nation off the shores of Europe, shafting the British people so as to serve the interests of Big Capital. As Matt's post suggests, the PR cover will be that the intransigent EU became "total bastards" in not accepting widespread UK deregulation AND good UK access to EU markets.... 

Yes

Yes

Don't know til we try

Doesn't appear so

Doesn't appear so

Who knows, whatever government does that kills their chances of reelection at the least. 

 

And I guess time will tell if what's clear to you is right, but I doubt the British people would just sit back and let it happen.

[The Guvnor]

3 hours ago, David Guiza said:

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. 

 

Absolutely different in it's content with regards the condemnation of the respective leaders.

[Magictv]

4 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

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

Just FYI he has regularly voted for leaving the EU, against more EU integration etc.

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11633/david_gauke/south_west_hertfordshire/votes#foreignpolicy

[David Guiza]

15 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Absolutely different in it's content with regards the condemnation of the respective leaders.

So an opinion on Boris from people who have worked alongside him for years doesn't count because they have a difference of opinion on Brexit? 

 

I don't see how somebody like Alan Duncan having a longstanding grudge against Boris is any different to Austin having a longstanding grudge against Corbyn? Both know the respective leaders are a damn sight better than most. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

While on the subject of negotiation with the EU, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that we will be the First Nation to ever negotiate a trade deal from a position of complete regulatory alignment.  

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

So an opinion on Boris from people who have worked alongside him for years doesn't count because they have a difference of opinion on Brexit? 

 

I don't see how somebody like Alan Duncan having a longstanding grudge against Boris is any different to Austin having a longstanding grudge against Corbyn? Both know the respective leaders are a damn sight better than most. 

 

Quite right but Austin’s opinion was largely dismissed by labour sympathisers on here too.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

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. 

May I ask why?

 

The only reason I can see for that is because some folks on both sides want it to be.

[David Guiza]

21 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Quite right but Austin’s opinion was largely dismissed by labour sympathisers on here too.

That's sort of my point, surely both should receive equal weight. Either both are ignored because they have an agenda, or both should respected/acknowledged.

 

 

[Innovindil]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

May I ask why?

 

The only reason I can see for that is because some folks on both sides want it to be.

Is that not reason enough? 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Is that not reason enough? 

What, an argument/realpolitik fight just for the sake of having one/ego?

 

I'm struggling to think of a more absurd and stupid waste of human time and energy outside of Love Island.

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What, an argument/realpolitik fight just for the sake of having one/ego?

 

I'm struggling to think of a more absurd and stupid waste of human time and energy outside of Love Island.

Of course it's a waste of time. That doesn't mean it's not what's going to happen though. We've had 3 years of nothing but bullshit from every side, I doubt it's going to all of a sudden get better. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Of course it's a waste of time. That doesn't mean it's not what's going to happen though. We've had 3 years of nothing but bullshit from every side, I doubt it's going to all of a sudden get better. 

On that you're sadly likely spot on wrt it being by far the most likely outcome.

 

My point, for the sake of additional clarity, is that it doesn't have to be this way, the actors involved are in fact rational humans with all the brain that entails and they have the choice to not in fact listen to their lizard brain (or at least have other people pull them up when they do) on this or any other matter - that people want to listen to that lizard brain, get involved in international sausage-size contests and "it is the way it is" is not a logical reason for it to happen, and that it is happening is stupid, asinine, and, most of all, needless.

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

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.

I can't read what Boris is doing to do and I gave no idea where to start - what I do know is though that last parliament couldn't pass a Brexit deal through and never intended too - on that reason aline we needed a new parliament to try.

 

As for the deregulation etc - I don't think many people want that but as @Innovindil says you don't give away your power to hurt or worry the opposition side in a negotiation before you start negotiating. 

 

As for environmental standards, workers rights etc - my opinion is exactly the same on that as it has always been, it is the job of the British government to decide those, who are in turn are elected by the British people to do so. If I wanted to sign up to other people's laws I wouldn't have voted for Brexit in the first place.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

I can't read what Boris is doing to do and I gave no idea where to start - what I do know is though that last parliament couldn't pass a Brexit deal through and never intended too - on that reason aline we needed a new parliament to try.

 

As for the deregulation etc - I don't think many people want that but as @Innovindil says you don't give away your power to hurt or worry the opposition side in a negotiation before you start negotiating. 

 

As for environmental standards, workers rights etc - my opinion is exactly the same on that as it has always been, it is the job of the British government to decide those, who are in turn are elected by the British people to do so. If I wanted to sign up to other people's laws I wouldn't have voted for Brexit in the first place.

Seeing as environmental hazards are well-known for not obeying international borders  I'm curious as to how having a patchwork of different national regulations about such things rather than a unified plan actually helps the situation going forward into the future, beyond reassurances of continuation of sovereignty, of course.

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I can't read what Boris is doing to do and I gave no idea where to start - what I do know is though that last parliament couldn't pass a Brexit deal through and never intended too - on that reason aline we needed a new parliament to try.

 

 

Boris' Deal had just been passed at second reading by 30 votes, when he called the election.

 

Granted, some Lab pragmatists & Tory moderates who helped it win intended to table amendments. We'll never know whether those amendments would have passed or whether Boris' Deal would ultimately have passed parliament, because he withdrew it before we could find out. I suspect that some amendments would have succeeded (e.g. a couple of weeks for proper scrutiny & exclusion of No Deal) - and the Deal would then have passed in amended form.

 

So, not only do I think that the last parliament COULD have passed a Brexit deal, but it was about to do so!

 

Johnson opportunistically opted for an election despite this, because he'd seen the polls suggesting that he'd win a majority - potentially enabling him to pass his deal without proper scrutiny or compromise and to gain unrestrained power for 5 years.

 

Neither is it true that Parliament "never intended to" pass a Brexit deal. Some MPs (Lib Dems & some Labour centrists mainly) did not intend to pass a deal without a 2nd referendum, but they were a minority.

Most MPs voted for one or other form of Brexit (e.g. via indicative votes), but they voted for different ones - and parliament did not agree a compromise deal, but was arguably on the point of doing so with Boris' deal plus amendments.

 

Matter of opinion who shares the blame for that lack of an earlier compromise, but I'd certainly assign some to May, for trying unsuccessfully to seek a compromise solely within her own party and the DUP, and to Johnson, for seeking a deal designed only to bring his ERG crew back on board (shafting his DUP allies & refusing to even countenance a modicum of compromise with Tory/Labour moderates that could have allowed his deal to pass amended). Include opposition parties, if you like, there's a case. 

 

Maybe the opportunism of the Tory Right will succeed in the short-term and the "get Brexit done" slogan will take Boris to a majority, an easy route to a Hard/No Deal Brexit and 5 years of unfettered power. If so, he'll be taking charge of a divided nation with a lot of discontent among those who feel that cynical extremists have manipulated the system to grind their faces into the dirt. In that case, let's hope that Brexit quickly brings great prosperity, freedom, control and opportunity to the British people. Because if it doesn't, there could be a hell of a reckoning - not least for those who promoted Brexit - and not just from Remainers. Up and down the country, millions of people will go and vote Boris believing, at the least, that Brexit will do no harm, and at the best that it will greatly improve their freedom, control, prosperity and the rest......what will Brexiteers and Tories have to say to them, and to those who never supported the project, if it makes their lives much worse?

 

In the meantime, there's still a possibility that Brexit might be lost entirely due to the Tories' refusal to compromise & Boris' opportunistic election. Unless Boris gets a majority or very close, he might have flushed your precious Brexit down the bog. The odds are in his favour at the moment, but still far from in the bag.....

[Jon the Hat]

I love the way Alf calls the Conservatives winning an election "5 years of unfettered power".  Presumably if Corbyn wins we are in for 5 years of good government and collaborative thinking

[Guest MattP]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Boris' Deal had just been passed at second reading by 30 votes, when he called the election.

 

Granted, some Lab pragmatists & Tory moderates who helped it win intended to table amendments. We'll never know whether those amendments would have passed or whether Boris' Deal would ultimately have passed parliament, because he withdrew it before we could find out. I suspect that some amendments would have succeeded (e.g. a couple of weeks for proper scrutiny & exclusion of No Deal) - and the Deal would then have passed in amended form.

 

So, not only do I think that the last parliament COULD have passed a Brexit deal, but it was about to do so!

 

Johnson opportunistically opted for an election despite this, because he'd seen the polls suggesting that he'd win a majority - potentially enabling him to pass his deal without proper scrutiny or compromise and to gain unrestrained power for 5 years.

 

Neither is it true that Parliament "never intended to" pass a Brexit deal. Some MPs (Lib Dems & some Labour centrists mainly) did not intend to pass a deal without a 2nd referendum, but they were a minority.

Most MPs voted for one or other form of Brexit (e.g. via indicative votes), but they voted for different ones - and parliament did not agree a compromise deal, but was arguably on the point of doing so with Boris' deal plus amendments.

 

Matter of opinion who shares the blame for that lack of an earlier compromise, but I'd certainly assign some to May, for trying unsuccessfully to seek a compromise solely within her own party and the DUP, and to Johnson, for seeking a deal designed only to bring his ERG crew back on board (shafting his DUP allies & refusing to even countenance a modicum of compromise with Tory/Labour moderates that could have allowed his deal to pass amended). Include opposition parties, if you like, there's a case. 

 

Maybe the opportunism of the Tory Right will succeed in the short-term and the "get Brexit done" slogan will take Boris to a majority, an easy route to a Hard/No Deal Brexit and 5 years of unfettered power. If so, he'll be taking charge of a divided nation with a lot of discontent among those who feel that cynical extremists have manipulated the system to grind their faces into the dirt. In that case, let's hope that Brexit quickly brings great prosperity, freedom, control and opportunity to the British people. Because if it doesn't, there could be a hell of a reckoning - not least for those who promoted Brexit - and not just from Remainers. Up and down the country, millions of people will go and vote Boris believing, at the least, that Brexit will do no harm, and at the best that it will greatly improve their freedom, control, prosperity and the rest......what will Brexiteers and Tories have to say to them, and to those who never supported the project, if it makes their lives much worse?

 

In the meantime, there's still a possibility that Brexit might be lost entirely due to the Tories' refusal to compromise & Boris' opportunistic election. Unless Boris gets a majority or very close, he might have flushed your precious Brexit down the bog. The odds are in his favour at the moment, but still far from in the bag.....

I still don't believe they were passing it afterwards despite that first vote, it was all about getting it past the 31st for them hence turning down the timetable.  Complained about lack of time and ran out of speakers on the first day, then followed that by saying it was the same as May's anyway!

 

If Brexit goes then so be it. If Boris can't get a majority without the BP it probably deserves to go. A CU/SM Brexit does seem totally pointless.

 

As an aside, how funny is it going to be if Corbyn wins then brings back a deal almost nobody is going to vote for?

 

I don't know a single Brexiteer who will vote for it, Tories aren't going to vote for, Labour is overwhelmingly pro-Remain - I'll make an early prediction you'll get about a 95% Remain win with more spoilt ballots than leave votes - it will be a complete farce.

[Foxin_Mad]

20 hours ago, HappyHamza 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. 

But surely it's far worse to vote Labour and get Corbyn, McDonnell and his band of far leftist extremists that will destroy jobs, wealth and prosperity? If you are moderate and sensible person.

 

There is absolutely no rationale for voting Labour other than mindless tribalism, they will do absolutely no good for anyone.

[harpendenfox]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

But surely it's far worse to vote Labour and get Corbyn, McDonnell and his band of far leftist extremists that will destroy jobs, wealth and prosperity? If you are moderate and sensible person.

 

There is absolutely no rationale for voting Labour other than mindless tribalism, they will do absolutely no good for anyone.

You think raising tax on income earned over an £80,000 threshold will destroy wealth and prosperity? You think increasing corporation tax from 19% to 26% will do the same? Labour’s polices are relatively modest. The term ‘far less extremists’ is so lazy. They’re simply proposing a modest redistribution of money to ensure our schools, hospitals, and police force are properly funded.

[Foxin_Mad]

1 minute ago, harpendenfox said:

You think raising tax on income earned over an £80,000 threshold will destroy wealth and prosperity? You think increasing corporation tax from 19% to 26% will do the same? Labour’s polices are relatively modest. The term ‘far less extremists’ is so lazy. They’re simply proposing a modest redistribution of money to ensure our schools, hospitals, and police force are properly funded.

Not this argument again. 

 

Yes they will. Tax that high is bad for business. The tax alone might just about keep the economy going badly. They have other far more damaging policies too. Redistribution of land and property, rationalisation at below market value, seizure of private enterprises for the 'many' workers shares, more power to unions. Increased minimum wage, 4 day working week, a pledge to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030 facilitated by an increased fuel duty, higher private/business vehicle taxation.

 

Anyone can see this would end badly for everyone.

 

My business would struggle to make 18 months if these policies come to fruition, many in the chambers of commerce predict similar.

 

Do Labour voters have any idea what these would do for jobs, wealth and inflation? Any increase in wages/benefits would be wiped out by inflation, the mass jobless would increase the welfare bill threefold.

 

Its incoherent. 

 

I hope to god these idiots never get into power. Those that think it's bad now ain't seen nothing yet.

 

The failure of a major first world economy on a scale never seen before would cause pain and suffering like nothing ever seen, Venezuela would look like child play.

[Izzy]

9 hours ago, ScouseFox said:

roughly how many people are going to vote in this election? 

Based on approx 46m eligible voters and around 65% turnout = about 30 million ish at a guess

[HappyHamza]

50 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Not this argument again. 

 

Yes they will. Tax that high is bad for business. The tax alone might just about keep the economy going badly. They have other far more damaging policies too. Redistribution of land and property, rationalisation at below market value, seizure of private enterprises for the 'many' workers shares, more power to unions. Increased minimum wage, 4 day working week, a pledge to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030 facilitated by an increased fuel duty, higher private/business vehicle taxation.

 

Anyone can see this would end badly for everyone.

 

My business would struggle to make 18 months if these policies come to fruition, many in the chambers of commerce predict similar.

 

Do Labour voters have any idea what these would do for jobs, wealth and inflation? Any increase in wages/benefits would be wiped out by inflation, the mass jobless would increase the welfare bill threefold.

 

Its incoherent. 

 

I hope to god these idiots never get into power. Those that think it's bad now ain't seen nothing yet.

 

The failure of a major first world economy on a scale never seen before would cause pain and suffering like nothing ever seen, Venezuela would look like child play.

This is drivel of the highest order.

 

Corporation tax was 28% when Britain was last booming  - under Labour. Its now 19%. France is 34% and Germany is 30%, for comparison. 

 

What brings business to advanced economies is the infrastructure and educational background of the locals.  If business wants those things then it's common sense that they have a value.  So business is prepared to pay more for better infrastructure.

 

If you can't run your business at 26% corporation tax - still lower than it was in 2010 and less than European rivals - then the problem is your business abilities.

[The Guvnor]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

I still don't believe they were passing it afterwards despite that first vote, it was all about getting it past the 31st for them hence turning down the timetable.  Complained about lack of time and ran out of speakers on the first day, then followed that by saying it was the same as May's anyway!

 

If Brexit goes then so be it. If Boris can't get a majority without the BP it probably deserves to go. A CU/SM Brexit does seem totally pointless.

 

As an aside, how funny is it going to be if Corbyn wins then brings back a deal almost nobody is going to vote for?

 

I don't know a single Brexiteer who will vote for it, Tories aren't going to vote for, Labour is overwhelmingly pro-Remain - I'll make an early prediction you'll get about a 95% Remain win with more spoilt ballots than leave votes - it will be a complete farce.

It is pointless and the fact that Labour are even considering this as a credible leave alternative to remain is a joke.

 

I too don't know a single vote leaver who would remotely entertain voting in another ref for a CU SM Brexit as they all agree it aint Brexit it's BRINO.

 

Agreed it would be a complete farce and total stitch up to leave voters.