FT General Election Poll 2019

[WigstonWanderer]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

FFS - I get the feeling Adolf would come out on the bottom left in this.

 

 

Commie bastard!

[LiberalFox]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

Thought I'd liven up the compass thing by turning it into an unstoppable penalty:

 

"The Death Penalty"

[LiberalFox]

I think last time we had an election I was appealing for people to try and be a bit more respectful. I think there's some truth in the idea that we exaggerate our political differences. I see a ton of unnecessary conflicts in my own party for example over issues where people actually share similar beliefs but don't/won't understand each other.

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I think last time we had an election I was appealing for people to try and be a bit more respectful. I think there's some truth in the idea that we exaggerate our political differences. I see a ton of unnecessary conflicts in my own party for example over issues where people actually share similar beliefs but don't/won't understand each other.

Think you're right.

 

There certainly, on here and out in the real world, people who will rip into something said by one side and celebrate it when said by the other. The Express ran two stories, two months apart, one celebrated the Tories raising the minimum wage, and another about labour doing it and saying it would cause huge unemployment, company liquidations etc. We all probably do it a little tbf.

[Beechey]

Normally more to the centre. This is extreme for me!

 

 

 

Edited 14 November 2019 by Beechey

[Izzy]

Just to the right of the bulls eye, similar to last time I think..

 

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Just to the right of the bulls eye, similar to last time I think..

 

Bloody nazi.

[Guest MattP]

Boris confirmed as standing in Uxbridge. 

 

All that nonsense about him doing the chicken run was just that. 

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Boris confirmed as standing in Uxbridge. 

 

All that nonsense about him doing the chicken run was just that. 

 

Or maybe he's just chickened out of chickening out? 

 

Send the people in chicken suits round, anyway, as they've been sorely lacking in this election so far - and Boris ran away from the hippies in Glastonbury. 

 

Also standing in Uxbridge are Lord Buckethead and Count Binface....a battle to savour. 

 

I see the Lib Dem is to be listed as "Liberal Democrat - To stop Brexit".....definitely putting all their eggs in one basket, aren't they?

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Think you're right.

 

There certainly, on here and out in the real world, people who will rip into something said by one side and celebrate it when said by the other. The Express ran two stories, two months apart, one celebrated the Tories raising the minimum wage, and another about labour doing it and saying it would cause huge unemployment, company liquidations etc. We all probably do it a little tbf.

To be fair there is a difference in the policies of Labour and the Tories on the minimum wage rise as far as I understand it. Labour would introduce the rise immediately whilst the Tories would graduate it over the course of 5 years. Quite a big difference economically.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Or maybe he's just chickened out of chickening out? 

 

Send the people in chicken suits round, anyway, as they've been sorely lacking in this election so far - and Boris ran away from the hippies in Glastonbury. 

 

Also standing in Uxbridge are Lord Buckethead and Count Binface....a battle to savour. 

 

I see the Lib Dem is to be listed as "Liberal Democrat - To stop Brexit".....definitely putting all their eggs in one basket, aren't they?

"Elmo" standing as well

 

They are getting desperate. Not polling the numbers they wanted and the latest electioncast actually has them losing seats from what they have now

 

Tricky one for me, obviously want a Conservative majority and that means a split remain vote - but I also want the Lib Dems absolutely destroyed for the position they have taken and for people like Philip Lee, Sarah Wollaston and Sam Gyimah to be humiliated after what they have done.

 

The mathematics of this election really are important - I was speaking to a Labour voter at work today who wants a "majority government" whatever happens, preferably Labour but if not then Conservative.

 

He brought up the bizarre (but certainly possible) scenario of 320 seats being enough for Boris to get his deal through, but then the "nightmare situation" of 310 seats to the Tories, all now committed to Brexit, but needing a handful of DUP or BP votes to get it done - and that's means a hard or potentially - no deal Brexit instead.

[StanSP]

The Telegraph could be a bit more subtle in their hatred of anything Labour/Corbyn  

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

They are getting desperate. Not polling the numbers they wanted and the latest electioncast actually has them losing seats from what they have now

 

Tricky one for me, obviously want a Conservative majority and that means a split remain vote - but I also want the Lib Dems absolutely destroyed for the position they have taken and for people like Philip Lee, Sarah Wollaston and Sam Gyimah to be humiliated after what they have done.

 

The mathematics of this election really are important - I was speaking to a Labour voter at work today who wants a "majority government" whatever happens, preferably Labour but if not then Conservative.

 

He brought up the bizarre (but certainly possible) scenario of 320 seats being enough for Boris to get his deal through, but then the "nightmare situation" of 310 seats to the Tories, all now committed to Brexit, but needing a handful of DUP or BP votes to get it done - and that's means a hard or potentially - no deal Brexit instead.

 

Although polls still have the Lib Dems well up on their performance in 2017, they could lose seats from where they are now (after incoming defectors) if most of their ex-Tory/Lab MPs lose.

 

If their current poll rating (15-16%) proves accurate, their MP numbers are highly unpredictable. Because they'll probably get a much bigger swing in SE Remainer seats than in SW Leave seats, but the latter often have smaller majorities.

So they might narrowly take a lot of seats or narrowly miss a lot.

 

I think your colleague who wants a Lab majority is going to be disappointed. No chance, unless Boris is caught stealing funds from the NHS and the Doncaster flood relief fund to pay for a sex orgy with Barnier, Juncker & Tusk.

Knowing him, he'd probably get away with that, anyway. 

 

Yes, the precise maths could really matter. But if the Tories are just short of a majority, they'd have options other than DUP or BP (possible that the BP would have no MPs and the DUP fewer than now, anyway). Some minor concessions - such as allowing a parliamentary vote on the Future Relationship deal & potential extension - could well bring enough Labour MPs from Leave seats onside to pass the WA. He also has the option to offer the SNP an IndyRef2 in exchange for their support....wouldn't put it past him (or them) after the way he shamelessly shafted the DUP. 

 

As you know, though, I reckon that a Tory majority could well lead to an ultra-Hard Brexit or No Deal, anyway, given his promises not to extend the transition period etc. He might have been bullshitting as usual when he promised no extension, but his ERG crew and heavily Hard Brexit membership won't see it that way....and he'd find an extension hard to sell to the electorate. I suppose that a very small majority might not lead down that road, as there are still a few Tory moderates who haven't left or been expelled....

[Alf Bentley]

Surprising poll from Sky / YouGov: https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-majority-of-voters-want-to-keep-free-movement-after-brexit-says-poll-11861365

 

56% of voters want freedom of movement to continue after we leave EU

28% want it to stop.

 

Even 33% of Leave voters want freedom of movement to continue, according to poll - and 41% of Tory voters.

 

Er, I thought stopping freedom of movement was one of the main reasons for Brexit?

Not the only one, but one of the main ones.... 

[jammie82uk]

What a farce As if this is ever going to happen 

 

 

Labour to nationalise broadband giving every home free fast WiFi 

 

The next Labour government will bring parts of BT into public ownership and costs would be paid through taxing multinationals including internet giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50427369

Edited 14 November 2019 by jammie82uk

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Surprising poll from Sky / YouGov: https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-majority-of-voters-want-to-keep-free-movement-after-brexit-says-poll-11861365

 

56% of voters want freedom of movement to continue after we leave EU

28% want it to stop.

 

Even 33% of Leave voters want freedom of movement to continue, according to poll - and 41% of Tory voters.

 

Er, I thought stopping freedom of movement was one of the main reasons for Brexit?

Not the only one, but one of the main ones.... 

It is for some and not for others, personally it’s the first I’d be happy to let go of in negotiating the withdrawal, as it doesn’t really affect me but I think there are some that would be furious.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

It is for some and not for others, personally it’s the first I’d be happy to let go of in negotiating the withdrawal, as it doesn’t really affect me but I think there are some that would be furious.

 

Yes, I appreciate that it's not crucial to every Leave supporter. But my impression was that it was a major issue for most - and THE issue for some.

 

It'll be ending, anyway, won't it - assuming we leave the EU and Single Market?

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I appreciate that it's not crucial to every Leave supporter. But my impression was that it was a major issue for most - and THE issue for some.

 

It'll be ending, anyway, won't it - assuming we leave the EU and Single Market?

God knows

I’ve given up predicting the outcome of the whole political charade at the moment. It’s absolute chaos. Fascinating but Christ this will be looked back on with some confusion, even in years to come I suspect.

Edited 14 November 2019 by Strokes

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

I would think even the vast majority of "liberals" would be drawing the line at the "100 genders" nonsense.

Putting the "100 genders" strawman aside for a moment (seeing as very few liberals or anyone else is actually saying that) ten or fifteen years ago you might have been right about liberal circles and views on the gender binary, but things have shifted since then to a much more nuanced look on gender (think a yardstick with guy at the one end and girl at the other rather than two completely separate areas), especially in "very liberal socially" circles.

 

And with respect Matt, I wouldn't expect someone who is "very liberal on social issues" to share the same views as you on the existence of trans folks and on gay adoption, to name but two issues. Though of course that's still a damn far sight from the fundie folks over Stateside or the nutter Orthodox Russians, for instance.

[leicsmac]

Anyhow:

 

 

About as expected.

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And with respect Matt, I wouldn't expect someone who is "very liberal on social issues" to share the same views as you on the existence of trans folks and on gay adoption, to name but two issues. Though of course that's still a damn far sight from the fundie folks over Stateside or the nutter Orthodox Russians, for instance.

I don't deny trans people the right to exist or identify as whatever they want - I just don't think biologically born men should be allowed to destroy women's sport using the huge advantages they have.

 

I'm not against gay adoption either.

[Nick]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't deny trans people the right to exist or identify as whatever they want - I just don't think biologically born men should be allowed to destroy women's sport using the huge advantages they have.

 

I'm not against gay adoption either.

Are we sure we are talking about trans people here? Or are we talking about women born as women but have some elements of their biology through no fault of their own that pertain to more masculine trends?

 

Because if it’s men dressed as women competing in women’s athletics wearing budgie smugglers with a big tackle then yeah, I’m against that too.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I don't deny trans people the right to exist or identify as whatever they want - I just don't think biologically born men should be allowed to destroy women's sport using the huge advantages they have.

 

I'm not against gay adoption either.

Serena Williams?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't deny trans people the right to exist or identify as whatever they want - I just don't think biologically born men should be allowed to destroy women's sport using the huge advantages they have.

 

I'm not against gay adoption either.

I was thinking more of the various terms you have used to describe trans folks in the past rather than the question of their existence in general, I should have been clearer there.

 

But thank you for your own clarification on both of those things.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I don't deny trans people the right to exist or identify as whatever they want - I just don't think biologically born men should be allowed to destroy women's sport using the huge advantages they have.

 

I'm not against gay adoption either.

 

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

Are we sure we are talking about trans people here? Or are we talking about women born as women but have some elements of their biology through no fault of their own that pertain to more masculine trends?

 

Because if it’s men dressed as women competing in women’s athletics wearing budgie smugglers with a big tackle then yeah, I’m against that too.

I am not that fussed about sport tbh, I am much more alarmed that some think that not allowing biological men who identify as women into changing rooms with women and girls is somehow discrimination against trans people, rather than the more obvious massively unfair on women and girls.  Really alarming and potentially damaging nonsense.