FT General Election Poll 2019

[David Guiza]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

How can an MP not even know their main party policy three weeks before an election? I really don't get this at all.

 

It's an unfortunate byproduct of Brexit. This chap is in a seat of about 70% leave voters I believe? My knowledge of Hartlepool extends to one trip to the football ground, the monkey chairman story and the fact that house prices are about £10,000 so I can't say i'm in touch with the general feeling there, but I imagine the majority are going to be voting on a single issue. 

 

No excuse whatsoever for the lies/ignorance, but you can see why he's skirting around the issue, seems immaterial regardless. 

 

 

 

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Interestingly the Brexit Party "contract with the people" (manifesto/pamphlet) doesn't contain anything about a no deal brexit.

 

Instead offering to ensure a clean break brexit instead. 

 

https://www.thebrexitparty.org/contract/#top 

Edited 22 November 2019 by Bobby Hundreds

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's an unfortunate byproduct of Brexit. This chap is in a seat of about 70% leave voters I believe? My knowledge of Hartlepool extends to one trip to the football ground, the monkey chairman story and the fact that house prices are about £10,000 so I can't say i'm in touch with the general feeling there, but I imagine the majority are going to be voting on a single issue. 

 

No excuse whatsoever for the lies/ignorance, but you can see why he's skirting around the issue, seems immaterial regardless. 

 

 

The Brexit Party see Hartlepool as their best chance of winning a seat. Their Chairman, Richard Tice, an articulate, high-profile character, is standing there. 

 

Given the high Leave vote and 3-way split (sizeable Labour & Tory votes), Tice might stand a chance. First time I've seen Mr. Hill, I think. If that's typical of him, he'll help their cause (or the Tory cause). 

 

Edited 22 November 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's an unfortunate byproduct of Brexit. This chap is in a seat of about 70% leave voters I believe? My knowledge of Hartlepool extends to one trip to the football ground, the monkey chairman story and the fact that house prices are about £10,000 so I can't say i'm in touch with the general feeling there, but I imagine the majority are going to be voting on a single issue. 

 

No excuse whatsoever for the lies/ignorance, but you can see why he's skirting around the issue, seems immaterial regardless. 

He's not going to be fooling many people with his voting record on it

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25619/mike_hill/hartlepool/divisions?policy=6761

 

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

The Brexit Party see Hartlepool as their best chance of winning a seat. Their Chairman, Richard Tice, an articulate, high-profile character, is standing there. 

 

Given the high Leave vote and 3-way split (sizeable Labour & Tory votes), Tice might stand a chance. First time I've seen Mr. Hill, I think. If that's typical of him, he'll help their cause (or the Tory cause). 

It's pretty much the only seat they have a chance in. UKIP beat the Tories there in 2015 so it's possible and they'll be throwing all their eggs into it.

 

It's probably the only seat the Tories should have stood down in - with that it was surely a BXP win but I think Labour will just about hold on in a three way split.

 

Richard Tice is competent but he's not very "Hartlepool" is he?

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

It's pretty much the only seat they have a chance in. UKIP beat the Tories there in 2015 so it's possible and they'll be throwing all their eggs into it.

 

It's probably the only seat the Tories should have stood down in - with that it was surely a BXP win but I think Labour will just about hold on in a three way split.

 

Richard Tice is competent but he's not very "Hartlepool" is he?

 

True, but Boris Johnson isn't very "North/Midlands working-class Labour" yet seems to be attracting voters there, if the polls are to be believed.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

True, but Boris Johnson isn't very "North/Midlands working-class Labour" yet seems to be attracting voters there, if the polls are to be believed.

Very good point.

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I'd like to be money rich first, which would then enable me to be time rich 

I know lots of people who are money poor but time rich and are among the happiest people I know.

But I guess it would be nice to be both 

 

Edited 22 November 2019 by Izzy

[Guest Eamonn]

18 hours ago, SMX11 said:

The only hope is that Corbyn and McDonnell are annihilated. That manifesto is horrifying and I think those considering to vote for the Lib dems over Brexit might need to reconsider! 

 

 

I'm voting LibDem over Brexit.  I believe the damage Brexit would do would undermine any future Government's efforts,  Labour or Conservative. We should stop Brexit and move on.

[Salisbury Fox]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Give us a break! The manifesto was only published yesterday - and real life intervenes occasionally! My work fluctuates but has been busy lately & my teenage daughter is staying with me continuously for a few weeks.

 

How come you lads have so much spare time? Are you landed gentry, trustafarians or dole wallahs? 

I thought you had a public sector job, Matt? Were you unable to take the stress of such an understaffed, cash-strapped workplace, or is it a zero-hours contract - or are you on secondment to the Tory propaganda dept? 

 

I appreciate your sincere and open-minded desire to understand how Labour will fund their spending/investment. But don't rely on football fans. Here's Labour's own detailed funding explanations:

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change-2019.pdf

I look forward to your detailed challenges to their costings - as I'm sure your scepticism isn't founded merely on personal bias or the superficial reports of Tory-supporting media.... 

 

I'm sure there's some excess optimism in Labour's costings. There always is for any political party. In the highly unlikely event they form a majority govt, I'm sure some stuff will not get done or will require extra funds. If they massively increased personal taxation or wrecked the economy, they'd be out of power almost forever, so I'm sure they'd postpone plans and/or make moderate increases in borrowing or tax.......just as the Tories would to fund the excess optimism in their plans. Of course, Labour's only realistic chance of being in govt is as a minority reliant on the support of other parties, anyway, so their plans would be watered down anyway......whereas there's a serious risk that Boris will get a majority so as to implement his reckless, destructive plans without such restraint.

 

The IFS says that Labour's plans lack credibility......but be ready for them to say the same about Tory plans. And I hope that this time the Tories offer a proper costing of their plans (they didn't in 2017).

Here's the IFS on Tory plans so far: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-tory-tax-spending-sajid-javid-boris-johnson-ifs-economy-a9203511.html

 

"Taxes will have to rise to meet Tory spending pledges, independent experts warn, in a stinging criticism of both big parties’ plans. The chancellor, is relying on a £37bn “cushion” – which has already been wiped out – to justify a string of high-cost promises to woo voters, the IFS says. Billions have been announced to replace lost police officers, end the benefits freeze, boost defence, extend childcare and rebuild technical education, in recent weeks".

.......I look forward to news of the Tory tax rises, or to the IFS slating their credibility, too...

 

Briefly, as I've got to work:

- Labour's increases in current expenditure are funded by tax (see pp. 4-5 of first link). Let's hear how the Tories plan to fund their extra spending....purely from extra borrowing?

- It's true that a large hike in interest rates would be ruinous (for either party but more so for Labour as they'd borrow more)....but inadequate investment in necessary infrastructure, decarbonisation, new industries, education/training & health/social care also risks being ruinous to society and economy....and life

- The corporation tax rises will be gradual & will merely return us to mainstream corporate tax levels in the West, after years of bleeding our people to hand inducements to big business

- Labour's spending plans would be above average by Western standards but by no means out on a limb

- Likewise, this morning McDonnell made it clear that the house-building programme would take a few years to get up to speed. But we have built public housing at that rate before (1950s/60s). After a few years to ensure the plans & skills are available, why would we be incapable of doing what we were able to do 50+ years ago?

- "Nationalisation" sounds terribly extreme to the post-Thatcher generation, but almost all the industries cited WERE publicly owned until the 80s/90s (more recently for Royal Mail). And many are fully or partly publicly-owned in multiple European countries. Indeed, we're in the preposterous situation where many of our utility companies & rail companies are indirectly owned, to a substantial extent, by the nationalised power/rail companies in other EU nations. So much for "taking back control"?! 

- Would unemployment rise at a time of such a massive a rise in public investment? I suppose some private firms might "slim down" or relocate, but that would surely be dwarfed by the extra employment created in the public sector, training, new industries etc. Higher pay would also boost consumer spending. I reckon the risks like more in skills shortages and inflation, not unemployment

- Plenty of firms invest in other western nations with higher corporate tax, and union/workers' reps on boards, as in Germany

- The Tories also have to explain how they will handle the economic/social damage & lost tax revenues caused by loss of trade after their favoured Hard Brexit (or No Deal)

 

I’m not sure why I deserved such a prickly response, but I can live with it. Of course I have biases, who doesn’t.  With regards your other post which you tagged me in, I work too hence why my post was at around 0530 this morning. 

 

I accept that this is a football fans forum, which is why I was not expecting someone to write a thesis. With regards your offer of me critiquing Labour’s manifesto at that weblink, I think the IFS have already done that. Yes of course the IFS will no doubt cast doubt on the credibility of the Conservative manifesto too, but I would like to think we can agree that it will not be on the same scale given that they will not be rewriting the economic foundations to anywhere near the same scale.

in response to your rush reply

- Labour’s spending commitments are not expected to be fully funded by tax, which is what the IFS have pointed out. 
- I accept that the Tories would suffer under the same economic consequences should interest rates on debt rise, but again I am expecting it to be no where near the scale because the borrowing will not be to the same levels, less risk, but risk all the same. Also disagree with some of the priorities, I mean tuition fees, really! Obviously plugging for votes, but a sensible approach would be to leave them or perhaps reduce them at most.
- I don’t mind corporation tax going up progressively, but it is what is being introduced with it that is worrying, I mean an instant rise of the minimum wage, shares in businesses for workers, compensation set by the government amongst others are hardly going to increase investment.

- Social house building in Wales has hardly been a success, despite McDonnell trying to focus on the future and so I don’t share your optimism.

- I am not sure of any comparison data on comparable western spending and so I can’t comment on that.

- I am not opposed to part nationalisation of some parts of the economy, but it is the scale that is again worrying. I would agree that an obsession with the privatisation of everything is not the way either, but then conversely neither is the answer being proposed by Labour.  I am more down the middle on this issue. I am also concerned by the scrapping of the secondary strike ban, as unions being too powerful has the potential to be detrimental to the economy.

- I personally believe that there will be inevitable job losses which will also impact the spending commitments proposed for the reasons I have already mentioned.
- The Tories deal on offer at the moment is not a hard Brexit deal although I understand where you are coming from that ultimately it could end up as one. As a remainer I don’t want a hard deal either, but there are not many options available to me.

- I would also add that devaluing a companies share price has significant risk for pensions.

[Salisbury Fox]

6 hours ago, David Guiza said:

With respect, I'm not sure that a football forum is necessarily the best place to get an answer to that question. I thought we were doing quite well on this thread, compared to recent times, up until the last couple of pages when it some posts looked like 2am Trump tweets on a sugar comedown. 

 

In answer to your question however, I think the vast majority of intelligent folk are aware that both parties (and beyond) are now just throwing any old crap out there in the hope that it sticks to swing voters. Some of Labours economic pledges are nothing short of a dream, but they're acutely aware of the fact that they're not going to get into power and the absolute best they could hope for is a coalition with at least one, if not two or more other parties and then the manifesto becomes watered down and blame is tossed around like it's going out of fashion, see Tory/LibDem coalition for reference. It's without doubt that, were they to actually get into power, pledges would be broken, but that's hardly a new concept. The current Government promised not to increase VAT, income tax or NI contributions, work to end child poverty, deliver a strong NHS, cut migration, protect school funding, boost mental health funding etc and failed one very single one of those points. 

 

I think i'm the same as many other left leaning posters on here in that we're fully aware of some of the nonsense in the Labour Party, economically, policy based and personnel. Personally, I would still prefer to vote Green, though again I am aware of their failings, but under the current system it's just not practical and would be in effect another way of shoring up a Tory majority. Ultimately, we're fed up of the mess that the Tories have made of the last 9 years. Fed up of an increasingly right Government who have dismissed 21 of their own for daring to disagree with them on the Brexit mess. We're fed up of Jacob Rees Mogg and his Victorian views on abortion and the poor, of Boris Johnson's lies and buffoonery, of Dominic Raab masquerading as a politician, of Michael Gove's inability to do anything but list reasons why Corbyn is worse than BJ, of the prospect of 5 years of Priti Patel's dreams of opening up Guantanamo Bay's sister prison on our shores and washing her hands of anyone beneath her social class, of more and more austerity, of the messes regarding Grenfell and Windrush, of privatisation, increased rail fares, poor public transport etc etc etc. 

 

I suspect that the vast majority in my profession would vote Tory, and they would probably benefit me subjectively more than other parties from a financial perspective, but I have always had the outlook of voting for those worse off than me and I am in no doubt that Labour would protect those worse off than me.

 

Even from a personal level, I have come home to see my wife either in tears, or verging on being so, so many times over the past couple of years (and no, not because I've walked through the door ) because of the utter mess that the education system is in.

She's working 10/12 hours a day, and weekends, just to keep her head above the mountain of crap that being a secondary school teacher throws at you. She's had time off for mental health, along with numerous other people in her department, and nothing is being done about it. Teaching is one of the most important professions in any nation and we're failing both our teachers and students on a daily basis and it's leading to 40% of teachers quitting with the first 5 years of joining the profession, and all of this for less than 30k a year. It's a mess and it's time that another party tried to fix it. 

I have not meant to offend and so apologies if I came over that way. I accept that there are frustrations with the Tories, but for me I don’t want to leap from the frying pan yet.

 

With regards Education, I agree and share your frustrations. I hope your wife is feeling better now.

[Wymsey]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/senior-leicester-labour-councillor-mustafa-3567972

[StanSP]

8 hours ago, Koke said:

This guy...

 

 

What bizarre comments!

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I’m not sure why I deserved such a prickly response, but I can live with it. Of course I have biases, who doesn’t.  With regards your other post which you tagged me in, I work too hence why my post was at around 0530 this morning. 

 

I accept that this is a football fans forum, which is why I was not expecting someone to write a thesis. With regards your offer of me critiquing Labour’s manifesto at that weblink, I think the IFS have already done that. Yes of course the IFS will no doubt cast doubt on the credibility of the Conservative manifesto too, but I would like to think we can agree that it will not be on the same scale given that they will not be rewriting the economic foundations to anywhere near the same scale.

in response to your rush reply

- Labour’s spending commitments are not expected to be fully funded by tax, which is what the IFS have pointed out. 
- I accept that the Tories would suffer under the same economic consequences should interest rates on debt rise, but again I am expecting it to be no where near the scale because the borrowing will not be to the same levels, less risk, but risk all the same. Also disagree with some of the priorities, I mean tuition fees, really! Obviously plugging for votes, but a sensible approach would be to leave them or perhaps reduce them at most.
- I don’t mind corporation tax going up progressively, but it is what is being introduced with it that is worrying, I mean an instant rise of the minimum wage, shares in businesses for workers, compensation set by the government amongst others are hardly going to increase investment.

- Social house building in Wales has hardly been a success, despite McDonnell trying to focus on the future and so I don’t share your optimism.

- I am not sure of any comparison data on comparable western spending and so I can’t comment on that.

- I am not opposed to part nationalisation of some parts of the economy, but it is the scale that is again worrying. I would agree that an obsession with the privatisation of everything is not the way either, but then conversely neither is the answer being proposed by Labour.  I am more down the middle on this issue. I am also concerned by the scrapping of the secondary strike ban, as unions being too powerful has the potential to be detrimental to the economy.

- I personally believe that there will be inevitable job losses which will also impact the spending commitments proposed for the reasons I have already mentioned.
- The Tories deal on offer at the moment is not a hard Brexit deal although I understand where you are coming from that ultimately it could end up as one. As a remainer I don’t want a hard deal either, but there are not many options available to me.

- I would also add that devaluing a companies share price has significant risk for pensions.

 

Sorry if you took my reply as "prickly". That wasn't the intention at all - hence all my laughing/winking emojis. My intended tone was to be combative but friendly & jokey. Sorry if you didn't see it like that.

 

I won't go on at length again - you can always rely on me to "write a thesis". 

But I agree with you on some points: that tuition fees shouldn't be a priority (a reduction or minimum maintenance grant, maybe?) and that the scale of nationalisations is OTT - maybe limit it to mis-sold Royal Mail & rail franchises when they expire or something.

In general, making a long list of "everything we'd like to do in an ideal world" is not a great approach. A few big, bold, attractive policies & a general air of competence would have been better.

 

Any UK national govt council housing initiative under Labour would be infinitely better-resourced than whatever has happened under a cash-strapped Welsh regime. Glad to hear McDonnell being realistic enough to admit that it would take time, though.

While unions may have been over-powerful in the past, I think they're not powerful enough now - see that graph that I posted, showing the decline in workers' share of value-added.

 

I'd see us heading for a pretty distant relationship with the EU, with lots of trade and other friction, under BJ. Might be wrong, of course.

Here's a good piece by the beautiful Katya Adler (my News pin-up): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50508360

 

See you around the forum - and don't be too quick to assume I'm prickly. I take politics seriously and enjoy a good argument (in a non-hostile way, mostly) but not worth taking exchanges on here too seriously. 

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

I know lots of people who are money poor but time rich and are among the happiest people I know.

But I guess it would be nice to be both 

 

My biggest problem is the hours I have to work to keep my household going. I'd love more time at home with my children, but it's just not possible. So yes, I need to be money rich first in order to be time rich 😊

[Koke]

12 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What bizarre comments!

 

Always find it funny when working class footballers who got rich off a working class game turn into elitist pricks. Karl Henry is another one.

 

He didn't like the replies he was getting so he backtracked. 

 

 

Edited 22 November 2019 by Koke

[StanSP]

Just now, Koke said:

 

Always find ut funny when working class footballers who got rich off a working class game turn into elitist pricks. Karl Henry is another one.

 

He didn't like the replies he was getting so he backtracked. 

 

 

In the situation, that's even worse than what he originally said (not context-wise) .

 

You don't tweet something like that out of frustration and it ending up as not what you really think. Head has definitely gone though!

[Guest MattP]

Corbyn announces he'll "stay neutral" in a second referendum.

 

A real leader

[Lionator]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn announces he'll "stay neutral" in a second referendum.

 

A real leader

He's right though, although in this era of black or white thinking, it will obviously not go down well. It would be the people's decision.

 

Just watching QT now and Sturgeon and Corbyn definitely have a deal going on. Every SNP seat is a seat for Labour.

 

It's also beyond parody how much more competent Sturgeon is than any of the other party leaders as a political leader. 

Edited 22 November 2019 by Lionator

[EnderbyFox]

Lived in Leicester all my life, but every time a general election roles around I turn into more of a Scottish Nationalist, Sturgeon is without a doubt the most competent public speaker communicating in these debates 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

He's right though, although in this era of black or white thinking, it will obviously not go down well. It would be the people's decision.

 

Just watching QT now and Sturgeon and Corbyn definitely have a deal going on. Every SNP seat is a seat for Labour.

 

It's also beyond parody how much more competent Sturgeon is than any of the other party leaders as a political leader. 

For the Prime Minister of the nation to not even take a position on his own deal on the most important issue of the day isn't right - it's frankly ludicrous.

 

Agree with you on the second part, Tories will be delighted with this for campaigning. 

 

Sturgeon is good but she's got a pretty easy job here, blame London for everything and anything. She's a Scottish Farage. 

 

The confirmatory referendum question was fantastic - if she thinks we need one after the deal to see if we really want to leave the EU, what logical reason can she give that the Scottish people shouldn't also have one when they've done the deal with the government of the UK?

 

She's knows the answer to that as well.

[Guest MattP]

Is anyone going to ask Sturgeon a question about the dreadful educational record in Scotland or why they refuse to raise taxes yet complain about austerity? 

 

This really is an easy ride.

[EnderbyFox]

Poor Swinson is taking a pasting here, she's beyond useless 

[Izzy]

7 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

Poor Swinson is taking a pasting here, she's beyond useless 

She's comes across to me as no more competent than a university political student. No experience or credibility. Another one who's not a true leader.

[Guest MattP]

Never rated Swinson, thought this could happen.

 

That revoke article 50 policy really was a disaster - Corbyn's policy delivers exactly the same result and you don't have to look like a dictator to do it.

[Bryn]

Her voting record in government gives her absolutely no chance.