FT General Election Poll 2019

[Dirkster the Fox]

10 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Do the least damage?! 

 

The hard right's vision of a hard Brexit will either car crash the economy and/or lead to years and years of flux whilst negotiation with the EU, US and others crawls along

If you hate the idea of leaving, that's your choice, but democracy spoke and was for leaving.

 

Boris's deal is not Hard Right Brexit as you describe. Its nearer BRINO and already approved with the EU.  So yes, despite me touching on many other reasons to consider when voting this time, his deal isn't likely to lead to a car crash as you put it as the EU are already signed up to first exit stage.

 

Equally, you are only viewing this point from the UK side. It can be noted and verified if you doubt me, that Germany, Italy, Spain etc are not exactly doing economically very well at the moment.  They would 100% need a future trade deal resolving in good time.  The EU is not in great shape.

 

Edited 20 November 2019 by Dirkster the Fox

[Spiritwalker]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Anyone but the Labour party.

 

Betrayed Northern and Midlands leave voters.

 

At the end of the day I want the party that is least likely to cause massive levels of business insolvency and record levels of unemployment. 

Maybe you should abstain then.

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

If you hate the idea of leaving, that's your choice, but democracy spoke and was for leaving.

 

Boris's deal is not Hard Right Brexit as you describe. Its nearer BRINO and already approved with the EU.  So yes, despite me touching on many other reasons to consider when voting this time, his deal isn't likely to lead to a car crash as you put it as the EU are already signed up to first exit stage.

 

Equally, you are only viewing this point from the UK side. It can be noted and verified if you doubt me, that Germany, Italy, Spain etc are not exactly doing economically very well at the me moment.  They would 100% need a future trade deal resolving in good time.  The EU is not in great shape.

 

Only the withdrawal agreement has been sorted. A Tory majority is a licence for a harder deal. Which will take years to settle.

 

You over estimate the EU reliance on us. I do business in Germany. I can tell you for a fact European businesses see our withdrawal as an opportunity to attract inward investment.

[Guest MattP]

Love how in the eyes of many remainers the Boris deal has gone from "the same as May's" when it looked like it could pass through parliament to a "Hard/No Deal Brexit" now it's going to the electorate.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Marxism uses a methodology, now known as historical materialism, to analyze and critique the development of class society and especially of capitalism as well as the role of class struggles in systemic economic, social, and political change. According to Marxist theory, in capitalist societies, class conflict arises due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage labourers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit

 

Taking 10% of all annual dividend payments made (Company over 250 employees) and put into a "Peoples fund".  Each person gets £500 below a certain income bracket and whats left goes to the treasury.  This would include most Private Pension funds which annually depend hugely on divined payments/growth.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/8a70b692-0967-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

 

I could carry on...............

 

At least Blair was centrist/moderate socialism, Corbyn et al are definitely Marxist.

 

Seems more like social democracy to me: a partial redistribution of wealth and power within a continuing capitalist system.....though a more radical redistribution than Blair, obviously.

 

I don't know enough about Labour's plan to debate it (and the FT link is behind a subscription wall).

 

But there's a decent justification for it here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work

"A fifth of workers earn less than £15,000 and the average pay packet is still worth less today than in the run-up to the financial crisis a decade ago. Like many advanced economies, there has been a long-term decline in the share of national income paid to workers in Britain. The flipside of the story is an increase in the share taken by asset owners (such as investors). This means that while wage growth has been slow, the money generated from owning something has increased".

 

And a criticism of the Labour scheme here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/24/john-mcdonnell-is-not-offering-workers-real-share-ownership

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Seems more like social democracy to me: a partial redistribution of wealth and power within a continuing capitalist system.....though a more radical redistribution than Blair, obviously.

 

I don't know enough about Labour's plan to debate it (and the FT link is behind a subscription wall).

 

But there's a decent justification for it here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work

"A fifth of workers earn less than £15,000 and the average pay packet is still worth less today than in the run-up to the financial crisis a decade ago. Like many advanced economies, there has been a long-term decline in the share of national income paid to workers in Britain. The flipside of the story is an increase in the share taken by asset owners (such as investors). This means that while wage growth has been slow, the money generated from owning something has increased".

 

And a criticism of the Labour scheme here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/24/john-mcdonnell-is-not-offering-workers-real-share-ownership

Can you name one "social democrat" government that is going to take private dividend payments, force businesses to put a % of workers on a board and has threatened to de-list companies from the stock market?

Edited 20 November 2019 by MattP

[Dirkster the Fox]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Seems more like social democracy to me: a partial redistribution of wealth and power within a continuing capitalist system.....though a more radical redistribution than Blair, obviously.

 

I don't know enough about Labour's plan to debate it (and the FT link is behind a subscription wall).

 

But there's a decent justification for it here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work

"A fifth of workers earn less than £15,000 and the average pay packet is still worth less today than in the run-up to the financial crisis a decade ago. Like many advanced economies, there has been a long-term decline in the share of national income paid to workers in Britain. The flipside of the story is an increase in the share taken by asset owners (such as investors). This means that while wage growth has been slow, the money generated from owning something has increased".

 

And a criticism of the Labour scheme here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/24/john-mcdonnell-is-not-offering-workers-real-share-ownership

Ok I say Lewis Hamilton is quick, you say he's fast............. (that FT article is open to read BTW.  I just clicked on it, but its back behind the PW now)

 

I'm pretty sure the current Labour party policy platform is hard left and has strong Marxist undertones.  You say Social Democracy.

 

We differ with the words used, but what they want to do is radical in recent decades. Do people really want a hard left Government, including one which owns/runs Broadband? 

 

Forget the (supposed) free bit, how many would openly say they want the Government to run the whole Broadband network in the UK?  Do you?

Edited 20 November 2019 by Dirkster the Fox

[Paninistickers]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Love how in the eyes of many remainers the Boris deal has gone from "the same as May's" when it looked like it could pass through parliament to a "Hard/No Deal Brexit" now it's going to the electorate.

I love how leavers were appalled at May's deal yet soon as a funny posh blonde man presents the same deal - except for cutting NI loose - the deal is entirely palatable.

[Dirkster the Fox]

7 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I love how leavers were appalled at May's deal yet soon as a funny posh blonde man presents the same deal - except for cutting NI loose - the deal is entirely palatable.

Its not acceptable for leavers though.  They've just witnessed 3 1/2 years of the establishment (media/politicians/business) all try and block it.  Death by a thousand cuts.

 

From the conversations I have/hear its a case of accept this (based on the above sentence) as the best outcome they realistically can get.  

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Love how in the eyes of many remainers the Boris deal has gone from "the same as May's" when it looked like it could pass through parliament to a "Hard/No Deal Brexit" now it's going to the electorate.

 

As I understand it, 80-90% of the agreement is the same as May's - including the divorce payment, which Boris said the EU could "whistle for".

 

One major difference is that the EU offered the "border in the Irish Sea" to May but she rejected it, under pressure from the DUP, but Boris was prepared to accept that offer and shaft the DUP so as to get rid of the backstop without establishing a hard border, which the EU would not have agreed.

 

Another major difference is that some items, such as alignment with EU workers' rights, have been moved from the binding WA under May to the non-binding Political Declaration under Boris.....grounds for seeing his deal as Harder.

You might claim that this is purely for negotiating purposes, but it would only be a credible negotiating threat if the govt was prepared to follow through on the threat and compete with the EU by deregulating & reducing British workers' rights. Personally, I'd see that as their intention, not a negotiating tactic.

 

The other aspect that increases the risk of an ultra-Hard Deal or No Deal, compared to May, is that Boris has committed to not extending the 11-month transition period (a decision that has to be taken in June/July, I think). Most such trade deals take 6-7 years to negotiate, as the Canadian Deal used as a role model did. Boris has committed to achieving the same in 11 months - or leaving with No Deal. Granted, we start in closer alignment....but we also start with a govt that intends to obtain the freedom to diverge significantly yet get a great deal.....something that the EU is highly unlikely to accept as it would jeopardise their own economy/society through a race to the bottom on standards. Of course, the EU might astonishingly capitulate (didn't so last time, did it?) or Boris might back down and agree to much greater alignment & less divergence - or he might be lying, as he so often is, and might extend the transition period for negotiations to continue for a couple more years. Otherwise, a skeleton Hard Deal or No Deal in December 2020 looks a very likely outcome. That didn't apply to May's Deal, hence why the hard-line ERG crew, who are happy with No Deal, support Boris' Deal but didn't support May's.

[Guest Eamonn]

1 hour ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Personally, I think they all have terrible leaders for different reasons. 

 

However, away from the 3 of them, the policy and reality of what they would do in Government is where I have to think here.  Who is likely to run the country the best in the next 5 years, or do the least damage? Foreign Policy, Domestic Interference (privatisation/nationalising), Economy, Immigration etc etc etc etc   

 

Lib Dems economically wouldn't be a disaster, but very unlikely to get into power and their core manifesto point is undemocratic and this would be too big a wound to heal.  I have kids and would fear for how our country / politics would end up with Brexit simply revoked. The largest ever vote ignored.  Not a healthy situation whichever way you voted in 2016 (I voted remain).

 

Labour genuinely scare the hell out of me.  This isn't centre left Labour form 97, 01, 05.  Blair (forget how we feel now), was palatable and electable at the time, hence 3 terms. This latest group are hard core left wing, openly Marxist now.  

 

For the above 2 reasons alone, sort of a best from a bad bunch, I can only vote Conservative as I feel they're the most likely to do the least damage in power.

The Lib Dems say in their manifesto that if they do not win enough to form a Government  (which they won't) then they will push for a referendum on the deal, with the option to remain. It's feasible they could hold the balance of power.  They can win my seat (they were a close 2nd last time). So i am voting for them, so we can have a vote on the actual deal.

[Dr The Singh]

Can't engage with Swinson, she doesn't co.e across as a leader.  

 

I really don't think her and her parties position as a minority long maker is in the best interest of the public.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Can you name one "social democrat" government that is going to take private dividend payments, force businesses to put a % of workers on a board and has threatened to de-list companies from the stock market?

 

As regards "forcing businesses to put a % of workers on a board": Germany under the SPD (Social Democrats) in the 1970s, maintained ever since, even by centre-right govts.....and Germany hasn't fared too badly economically:

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

 

"Codetermination in Germany is a concept that involves the right of workers to participate in management of the companies they work for.^[1] Known as Mitbestimmung, the modern law on codetermination is found principally in the Mitbestimmungsgesetz of 1976. The law allows workers to elect representatives (usually trade union representatives) for almost half of the supervisory board of directors. The legislation is separate from the main German company law Act for public companies, the Aktiengesetz. It applies to public and private companies, so long as there are over 2,000 employees. For companies with 500–2,000 employees, one third of the supervisory board must be elected".

 

 

I don't know about particular dividend schemes, either this one or others, but employee share ownership schemes are widespread and generally seen as motivating & liable to boost productivity.

Let's see what's in the manifesto, anyway - due tomorrow, I think?

 

Of course, Thatcher did it the other way round and took public assets, belonging to us as taxpayers, and sold them (with their accruing dividends) to private capital - sometimes Joe Public, but most ended up in corporate hands, often at scandalously low prices that were poor value to the taxpayer who had lost out.

[Dirkster the Fox]

4 minutes ago, Eamonn said:

The Lib Dems say in their manifesto that if they do not win enough to form a Government  (which they won't) then they will push for a referendum on the deal, with the option to remain. It's feasible they could hold the balance of power.  They can win my seat (they were a close 2nd last time). So i am voting for them, so we can have a vote on the actual deal.

Each to their own and that's what its about.  I respect you view and logic, but differ in my chosen outcome.  I voted remain, but do feel a form of BREXIT must be delivered.  Its only because of the EU ruling (Article 50) which required 2 years exit, then May's choosing to delay it for months before requesting and then the clear obstruction since (the deaths by a 1000 cuts) delaying by parliament to proceed. This is all designed to strategically beat the leavers into submission. Maybe its worked and the GE will show this, but I still feel fundamentally by not leaving, the damage to the democracy in our country will run deep.  So a referendum giving a choice to stay is all part of the strategy and for that I've decided we must take the deal now option (Conservative) and try and move on.

 

[Alf Bentley]

45 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

But there's a decent justification for it here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/24/how-would-labour-plan-to-give-workers-10-stake-in-big-firms-work

"A fifth of workers earn less than £15,000 and the average pay packet is still worth less today than in the run-up to the financial crisis a decade ago. Like many advanced economies, there has been a long-term decline in the share of national income paid to workers in Britain. The flipside of the story is an increase in the share taken by asset owners (such as investors). This means that while wage growth has been slow, the money generated from owning something has increased".

 

And a criticism of the Labour scheme here: https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2018/sep/24/john-mcdonnell-is-not-offering-workers-real-share-ownership

 

@MattP 

When you replied, you chose not to mention the bit in bold. Any thoughts?

 

Whatever you think of McDonnell's particular idea (and I'm not well-informed about it myself), what about the justification behind it? 

 

What would you do instead about the long-term redistribution of wealth/income from labour to capital, from workers to owners, from working people to wealth-holders?

Or is that just something that should be accepted, even if inequality gets more and more extreme and we end up in something akin to Victorian times with millions of working people in penury and a minority luxuriating in extreme wealth?

Does your belief in free-market ideology make that situation acceptable?

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

@MattP 

When you replied, you chose not to mention the bit in bold. Any thoughts?

 

Whatever you think of McDonnell's particular idea (and I'm not well-informed about it myself), what about the justification behind it? 

 

What would you do instead about the long-term redistribution of wealth/income from labour to capital, from workers to owners, from working people to wealth-holders?

Or is that just something that should be accepted, even if inequality gets more and more extreme and we end up in something akin to Victorian times with millions of working people in penury and a minority luxuriating in extreme wealth?

Does your belief in free-market ideology make that situation acceptable?

Tired watching cricket but a quick reply. 

 

I don't really see the point of it, one I don't see how it's feasible for a start and why would only some workers get it? Even if it was a success it then proves a disaster for small business who will lose the talent they have as they can't compete with the benefits and wages of the big companies - what then happens to public sector workers who also want a bit of this? More taxation on everybody else or another gamble on the rich paying up?

 

If anything I'd imagine companies would reduce other benefits and it might even end up costing the employees in the long term - I'd prefer cutting taxes to let workers keep more of their own money whilst implementing the minimum wage rises.

 

As for the last point - if that happens it's not acceptable, but that isn't happening in the UK despite some people trying to claim it is. 

[StanSP]

What is she on about here? 

 

Isn't it the government that have made cuts to such services like education and public. Led by local authorities, yes. But who's reducing the money that local authorities get to provide such services? 

 

She must be one of the worst 'elite' around. Another who's so far detached from reality in the Tory party. Slimy bitch. 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

@MattP 

When you replied, you chose not to mention the bit in bold. Any thoughts?

 

Whatever you think of McDonnell's particular idea (and I'm not well-informed about it myself), what about the justification behind it? 

 

What would you do instead about the long-term redistribution of wealth/income from labour to capital, from workers to owners, from working people to wealth-holders?

Or is that just something that should be accepted, even if inequality gets more and more extreme and we end up in something akin to Victorian times with millions of working people in penury and a minority luxuriating in extreme wealth?

Does your belief in free-market ideology make that situation acceptable?

There is also the point, that isn’t made often enough, that poorly paid workers are unable to afford the goods produced by said companies. Decently paid workers are essential to the demand side of the economy.

[Alf Bentley]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I don't really see the point of it, one I don't see how it's feasible for a start and why would only some workers get it? Even if it was a success it then proves a disaster for small business who will lose the talent they have as they can't compete with the benefits and wages of the big companies - what then happens to public sector workers who also want a bit of this? More taxation on everybody else or another gamble on the rich paying up?

 

If anything I'd imagine companies would reduce other benefits and it might even end up costing the employees in the long term - I'd prefer cutting taxes to let workers keep more of their own money whilst implementing the minimum wage rises.

 

As for the last point - if that happens it's not acceptable, but that isn't happening in the UK despite some people trying to claim it is. 

 

I won't continue about the detail of McDonnell's scheme as I don't know enough about it. The second link that I posted (Pratley) is sympathetic to the idea that workers should get a greater share of the income that companies generate - but raises various criticisms of McDonnell's plan, some of them similar to the ones you've raised......and there's a valid One Nation Tory argument for cutting income tax & raising the minimum wage (so long as public services are covered by other means).

 

But, on the last point, you seem to be in denial of reality - unless you've misunderstood my point? 

 

It is a simple fact that, over recent decades and particularly since the crash, a greater share of income has been going to capital and a shrinking share has been going to labour/pay.....and not only in the UK, it's happening across the West, across the advanced capitalist world, although some aspects may be worse in the UK as we've become one of the more laissez-faire countries, behind the USA, and have greater income inequality than other European nations.

 

Just for starters, you know that although UK GDP has risen slowly since the crash, it has risen - yet it's a fact that median pay has been stagnant over the same period, while the growth income accruing to capital has risen....yet not been devoted to investment.

 

This is an excellent, accessible & politically neutral summary of the facts/arguments with good stats: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/135320/economics/labour-share-of-gdp/

 

Look at this graph. The only time since the Edwardian era when labour got a lower share of GDP than it does now was during WW1 & WW2......yet we are afflicted with under-investment, low productivity & ballooning inequality.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Personally, I think they all have terrible leaders for different reasons. 

 

However, away from the 3 of them, the policy and reality of what they would do in Government is where I have to think here.  Who is likely to run the country the best in the next 5 years, or do the least damage? Foreign Policy, Domestic Interference (privatisation/nationalising), Economy, Immigration etc etc etc etc   

 

Lib Dems economically wouldn't be a disaster, but very unlikely to get into power and their core manifesto point is undemocratic and this would be too big a wound to heal.  I have kids and would fear for how our country / politics would end up with Brexit simply revoked. The largest ever vote ignored.  Not a healthy situation whichever way you voted in 2016 (I voted remain).

 

Labour genuinely scare the hell out of me.  This isn't centre left Labour form 97, 01, 05.  Blair (forget how we feel now), was palatable and electable at the time, hence 3 terms. This latest group are hard core left wing, openly Marxist now.  

 

For the above 2 reasons alone, sort of a best from a bad bunch, I can only vote Conservative as I feel they're the most likely to do the least damage in power.

Depends. Are they the only important issues then - or even the most important at this point in time?

[Gordon the Great]

15 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

It crosses a line in my opinion, I'd be ashamed if the Liberal Democrats did this. 

But not if they were to completely disregard the result of the biggest vote this country has ever had ?

[lgfualol]

8 hours ago, StanSP said:

What is she on about here? 

 

Isn't it the government that have made cuts to such services like education and public. Led by local authorities, yes. But who's reducing the money that local authorities get to provide such services? 

 

She must be one of the worst 'elite' around. Another who's so far detached from reality in the Tory party. Slimy bitch. 

 

Deplorable woman. Sadly, a lot of people agree with her. 

[David Guiza]

Rachel Riley has made some genuine points in the past regarding Labour and Corbyn, but editing a photo of him protesting against the apartheid for a selfie calling him a racist is just odd at best.

[davieG]

9 hours ago, StanSP said:

What is she on about here? 

 

Isn't it the government that have made cuts to such services like education and public. Led by local authorities, yes. But who's reducing the money that local authorities get to provide such services? 

 

She must be one of the worst 'elite' around. Another who's so far detached from reality in the Tory party. Slimy bitch. 

 

This is not really necessary or acceptable on here. Can we leave personal insults to other media sites.

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, David Guiza said:

Rachel Riley has made some genuine points in the past regarding Labour and Corbyn, but editing a photo of him protesting against the apartheid for a selfie calling him a racist is just odd at best.

Yeah that was in bad taste from her. Taken her dislike for him too far on this occasion. 

 

54 minutes ago, davieG said:

This is not really necessary or acceptable on here. Can we leave personal insults to other media sites.

Really .