FT General Election Poll 2019

[David Guiza]

47 minutes ago, MattP said:

And here we go

 

Holly Rigby is a racist and a homophobe anyway. 

 

So is the PM:-

 

• "Before coming here my officials have told me that the latest university intake in Malaysia, a Muslim country, 68% will be women entering our universities." Boris interrupted with the suggestion that: "They've got to find men to marry."
• Writing in the Spectator in 2000 Johnson attacked what he called "Labour's appalling agenda, encouraging the teaching of homosexuality in schools, and all the rest of it."
• In his 2001 book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," Johnson compared gay marriage to bestiality, writing that "If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."
• In a 1998 Telegraph column about Peter Mandelson's resignation from the Labour government, Johnson said the announcement would lead to the blubbing of "tank-topped bumboys" in "the Ministry of Sound" nightclub, and "the soft-lit Soho drinking clubs frequented by Mandy and his pals." He added that Mandelson's departure would cause the "lipstick" to come away from Blair's government.
• "What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles."
• The infamous 'letterbox' comment.
• "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," he wrote."Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."
• He also questioned the loyalty of British Muslims and insisted that the country must accept that "Islam is the problem." "It will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain," he wrote."That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem." He added: "What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam's medieval ass?"

 

[SecretPro]

49 minutes ago, MattP said:

And here we go

 

Holly Rigby is a racist and a homophobe anyway. 

 

Who cares what she thinks?

Funny coming from the one who earlier in the thread was laughing at 'letterboxes' and Johnson's description of Tank-Topped bumboys.

[Mike Oxlong]

Tories missed a trick on this one 

 

They should have said we are going to ensure that there are going to be 320,000 more nurses ....... (than there would have been had we sacked them all) 

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

In the normal course of events nurses retire and others are recruited. A neutral stance would be just to replace those nurses that leave to keep the number of nurses constant. This is just business as usual.

 

If the government choose not to replace nurses who leave they are reducing the total. If they recruit more than those leaving they are increasing the total. If a party claim that they will add 50,000 nurses, they must recruit 50,000 in addition to those that leave. Anything else is just playing with words and numbers.

 

This really isn’t that hard, it just simple arithmetic.

This is the real world, not a maths question.  If the Government change nothing we are predicted to lose another 20.000 nurses vs current capabilty to add more.  So just to stand still they have to do something significant.  

 

To beat to death the football metafor, if a manager says we are going to add 5 new signings, that doesn't mean a net increase to the squad of 5, it means we are going to go to work to find 5 talented players to improve the squad.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Tories missed a trick on this one 

 

They should have said we are going to ensure that there are going to be 320,000 more nurses ....... (than there would have been had we sacked them all) 

That would only make sense if there was an established policy saying they would all be sacked, and the government changed policy to retain them.  I suspect the former would lead to riots, so not that likely really.

 

No you could claim the previous conservative policy of removing the bursary and tution funding for nurses, and tightening immigration overseas requirements has partly caused the shortage in nurses which they are not resolving, and I would have to agree.

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is real life, where such certainty doesn’t exist; decisions and policy is based on best estimates.  Are you able to assert that without changes the numbers of nurses leaving the profession would reduce? The RCN expects it to get worse.

I need assert nothing as the burden of proof for the conclusions drawn does not lie with me.

 

You're absolutely right that such certainty doesn't exist, and perhaps people - and indeed political parties - should be more careful when considering numbers and how they are applied.

[WigstonWanderer]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is the real world, not a maths question.  If the Government change nothing we are predicted to lose another 20.000 nurses vs current capabilty to add more.  So just to stand still they have to do something significant.  

 

To beat to death the football metafor, if a manager says we are going to add 5 new signings, that doesn't mean a net increase to the squad of 5, it means we are going to go to work to find 5 talented players to improve the squad.

If we are predicted to lose 20,000, then the government are falling down on the job by failing to recruit sufficient to ensure a stable number of nurses. To claim credit by not allowing this to happen is just blatant propaganda - fully expected with this bunch of scam artists. I really can’t believe you’re defending it.

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Funny coming from the one who earlier in the thread was laughing at 'letterboxes' and Johnson's description of Tank-Topped bumboys.

If Johnson had genuinely sat next to extreme members of the Israeli far right, or Muslims were actually ready to flee the nation if he won the election - I wouldn't vote for him.

 

Labour have done a fantastic job of the whataboutawry trying to make a genuine comparison between the two but when you get statements like the one this morning you realise just how far the two situations are apart.

[David Guiza]

Out of interest, how do people feel about religious leaders getting involved in elections?

 

I understand that if one is protecting his/her people from a potentially terrible fate then it makes sense, but still seems a little complicated to critique one and not others. I would be equally uncomfortable were the Archbishop berating Boris for being a compulsive liar too. 

 

 

[StanSP]

40 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

So is the PM:-

 

• "Before coming here my officials have told me that the latest university intake in Malaysia, a Muslim country, 68% will be women entering our universities." Boris interrupted with the suggestion that: "They've got to find men to marry."
• Writing in the Spectator in 2000 Johnson attacked what he called "Labour's appalling agenda, encouraging the teaching of homosexuality in schools, and all the rest of it."
• In his 2001 book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," Johnson compared gay marriage to bestiality, writing that "If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."
• In a 1998 Telegraph column about Peter Mandelson's resignation from the Labour government, Johnson said the announcement would lead to the blubbing of "tank-topped bumboys" in "the Ministry of Sound" nightclub, and "the soft-lit Soho drinking clubs frequented by Mandy and his pals." He added that Mandelson's departure would cause the "lipstick" to come away from Blair's government.
• "What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies," he wrote, referring to African people as having "watermelon smiles."
• The infamous 'letterbox' comment.
• "To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke," he wrote."Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."
• He also questioned the loyalty of British Muslims and insisted that the country must accept that "Islam is the problem." "It will take a huge effort of courage and skill to win round the many thousands of British Muslims who are in a similar state of alienation, and to make them see that their faith must be compatible with British values and with loyalty to Britain," he wrote."That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem." He added: "What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam's medieval ass?"

 

This is odd because whenever comments are raised about Johnson's blatant racist remarks or at the very least insensitive and insulting, I very rarely see him condemned for it. 

 

'Some self-reflection about how it has come to this and some hopeful assurance everything is being done to tackle it' were words mentioned by @MattP on the last page.

 

How has it come to be that the PM of this country can get away with it time and time again and elevate to a position of power in this country? What is being done in the Tory party to tackle it? I'd imagine not much given Johnson can worm/work his way up to PM without any backlash. 

 

Put it this way. For all the lack of reassurance that anti-semitism isn't being tackled in the Labour Party, I have never once found reassurance that racism is being properly tackled in the Tory party. Yet all we seem to hear about is AS in Labour... 

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Out of interest, how do people feel about religious leaders getting involved in elections?

 

I understand that if one is protecting his/her people from a potentially terrible fate then it makes sense, but still seems a little complicated to critique one and not others. I would be equally uncomfortable were the Archbishop berating Boris for being a compulsive liar too. 

 

 

To be honest I would prefer if relgious people were kept well away from politics.  They should not be in the house of Lords for a start.

 

That said, if they feel that strongly they have as much right to speak out as anyone else.  I found that fact that the Archbishop also came out and supported the chief Rabbi's stance as interesting.

[Jon the Hat]

30 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

If we are predicted to lose 20,000, then the government are falling down on the job by failing to recruit sufficient to ensure a stable number of nurses. To claim credit by not allowing this to happen is just blatant propaganda - fully expected with this bunch of scam artists. I really can’t believe you’re defending it.

It is reality.  They are starting from a reasonably well know forecast of an increasing shortage of nurses.  I don't see the issue.

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

This is odd because whenever comments are raised about Johnson's blatant racist remarks or at the very least insensitive and insulting, I very rarely see him condemned for it. 

 

'Some self-reflection about how it has come to this and some hopeful assurance everything is being done to tackle it' were words mentioned by @MattP on the last page.

 

How has it come to be that the PM of this country can get away with it time and time again and elevate to a position of power in this country? What is being done in the Tory party to tackle it? I'd imagine not much given Johnson can worm/work his way up to PM without any backlash. 

 

Put it this way. For all the lack of reassurance that anti-semitism isn't being tackled in the Labour Party, I have never once found reassurance that racism is being properly tackled in the Tory party. Yet all we seem to hear about is AS in Labour... 

I am not sure Boris is standing up and saying he has spent his whole life fighting racism, or that the Conservative party was founded on inclusivity and equality.  If you set the bar that high, expect people to call you out on it.

 

We know well that in fact Boris spend most of career until very recently as a full or part time journalist writing inflamatory articles designed to make a point in a "witty" and often controversial way.  There are a million examples of him talking nonsense, and I think most people think he is a bit of a tit, but not that he necessarily believes any of it, or which bits he might believe or not.  It does make it rather difficult.

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, StanSP said:

This is odd because whenever comments are raised about Johnson's blatant racist remarks or at the very least insensitive and insulting, I very rarely see him condemned for it. 

 

'Some self-reflection about how it has come to this and some hopeful assurance everything is being done to tackle it' were words mentioned by @MattP on the last page.

 

How has it come to be that the PM of this country can get away with it time and time again and elevate to a position of power in this country? What is being done in the Tory party to tackle it? I'd imagine not much given Johnson can worm/work his way up to PM without any backlash. 

 

Put it this way. For all the lack of reassurance that anti-semitism isn't being tackled in the Labour Party, I have never once found reassurance that racism is being properly tackled in the Tory party. Yet all we seem to hear about is AS in Labour... 

Probably because remarks are not the same as actions, stupid remarks about religious dress are not equatable to sharing platforms with holocaust deniers or groups who openly want to drive Jews into the sea, making jokes about "bum boys" aren't on the same level as laying wreaths as the graves of terrorists who massacre the innocent.

I get you want to vote Labour and that's fine, nothing wrong with just taking the position that getting rid of the Tories is more important that getting rid of antisemitism from the party - it's a position all the MP's still standing have taken as well.
 

24 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Out of interest, how do people feel about religious leaders getting involved in elections?

 

I understand that if one is protecting his/her people from a potentially terrible fate then it makes sense, but still seems a little complicated to critique one and not others. I would be equally uncomfortable were the Archbishop berating Boris for being a compulsive liar too.

As I said in my oringinal post, uncomfortable with it, but understand it given the circumstances. Had Boris and his actions driven numerous Muslims out of his own party and he had associated with all sorts of Muslim hate groups I'd probably expect the same from whoever the top Iman is.

 

Welby backing him up says a lot as well, given he's probably the most openly left-wing Archbishop we've had.

Edited 26 November 2019 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

Another record as 366,000 more people registered to vote yesterday. 

 

Let's hope that not all the registrations were made by Mr. V. Putin of Moscow..... 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

As I said in my oringinal post, uncomfortable with it, but understand it given the circumstances. Had Boris and his actions driven numerous Muslims out of his own party and he had associated with all sorts of Muslim hate groups I'd probably expect the same from whoever the top Iman is.

 

 

There's only one top Iman....

 

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I get you want to vote Labour and that's fine, nothing wrong with just taking the position that getting rid of the Tories is more important that getting rid of antisemitism from the party

Where have I said that?

 

AS in the Labour Party should be eradicated just as much as racism in any party should be, too? 

 

I vote Labour because I can't associate myself with several Tory policies and their morals. I can relate more to Labour than I can Tory... 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

AS in the Labour Party should be eradicated just as much as racism in any party should be, too? 

 

I vote Labour because I can't associate myself with several Tory policies and their morals. I can relate more to Labour than I can Tory... 

That's my point, you want it to be eradicated, but if it isn't then so be it, you'll still vote for them, so it's not that important..

Don't worry about it, I voted UKIP in a few elections despite knowing they had some pretty serious racism inside the party - because I saw the end goal of leaving the EU as worth it. (Although I never voted for them in a GE)

[SecretPro]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Probably because remarks are not the same as actions, stupid remarks about religious dress are not equatable to sharing platforms with holocaust deniers or groups who openly want to drive Jews into the sea, making jokes about "bum boys" aren't on the same level as laying wreaths as the graves of terrorists who massacre the innocent.

I get you want to vote Labour and that's fine, nothing wrong with just taking the position that getting rid of the Tories is more important that getting rid of antisemitism from the party - it's a position all the MP's still standing have taken as well.
 

As I said in my oringinal post, uncomfortable with it, but understand it given the circumstances. Had Boris and his actions driven numerous Muslims out of his own party and he had associated with all sorts of Muslim hate groups I'd probably expect the same from whoever the top Iman is.

 

Welby backing him up says a lot as well, given he's probably the most openly left-wing Archbishop we've had.

Well you have aligned yourself with a Rabbi that wants Palestine and Gaza wiped from the map and who has openly admitted that violence against innocent Palestinians is acceptable because of the end goal. The epitome of racism. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Another record as 366,000 more people registered to vote yesterday. 

 

Let's hope that not all the registrations were made by Mr. V. Putin of Moscow..... 

Certainly not going to be the landslide many have predicted on the basis of a couple of rogue polls.

I think the "range" is somewhere from a Conservative 280-350 seats. How that falls on the day? Who knows.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, SecretPro said:

Well you have aligned yourself with a Rabbi that wants Palestine and Gaza wiped from the map and who has openly admitted that violence against innocent Palestinians is acceptable because of the end goal. The epitome of racism. 

That's a pretty serious accusation, he's certainly been supportive of the Israeli government (I doubt that's controversial among rabbis) but where has he said he wnats Palestine and Gaza "wiped from the map"?

[HappyHamza]

13 hours ago, Strokes said:

If they added 50,000 and just let the 19,000 leave the end figure would be the same. 
Only you would have 19,000 inexperienced staff, this is better if you ask me

 

 

13 hours ago, Strokes said:

If the figure of adding 50,000 but letting 19,000 leave is the same as adding 31,000 and not letting them leave. Then it’s the same. It is more

 

 

13 hours ago, Strokes said:

The 31,000 is over and above current employment levels, the 19,000 is below current leaving levels. The end result is the same.

 

10 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I see most of you have gone daft while I’ve been busy this evening.  
Is it really too difficult to understand that you can have 50,000 more nurses than if you did nothing to address the shortages, and that a mix of retaining those who are expected to leave at current run rates, training new Nurses (with Bursuries), and recruiting from overseas is the approach to achieve this.

Believe it or not, you don’t always have to start with where you are now, especially if you are dealing with a growing gap.

in football terms, imagine you need three players now, so you sign three to start in the summer, but ignore the fact that another two players have signed pre contracts to leave in the summer, and another says he is going to.  If you do nothing you will have a gap of three players again in the summer, but if you retain one, sign a couple from overseas then you are ok.  Jobs a goodun, you are the next Steve Walsh.

See?

Guys. What are you doing?

 

If you want to vote Tory just vote Tory. You don't have to tie yourself up in knots defending what is a blatently disingenuous (at best) policy.

You're not convincing anybody and are frankly looking pretty silly.

 

Though I half think Strokes is on the wind up tbh. 

[SecretPro]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

That's a pretty serious accusation, he's certainly been supportive of the Israeli government (I doubt that's controversial among rabbis) but where has he said he wnats Palestine and Gaza "wiped from the map"?

Oh but I thought we did guilt by vague association now rather than what people have actually said - or does that just apply to Corbyn?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, SecretPro said:

Oh but I thought we did guilt by vague association now rather than what people have actually said - or does that just apply to Corbyn?

As I thought, he hasn't.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Certainly not going to be the landslide many have predicted on the basis of a couple of rogue polls.

I think the "range" is somewhere from a Conservative 280-350 seats. How that falls on the day? Who knows.

 

Really hard to predict - and might remain so until the day.

 

I think my "range" would put the Tories at 300-370 at the moment, but events in the next fortnight might affect that.

I can't see them dropping to 280 (net loss of 37 seats v. 2017?). They seem set to take an indeterminate number of Lab seats & their losses to the SNP & Lib Dems might be lower than expected, given the polls.

 

The polls suggest the upper end of that range at the moment, but various factors could reduce the Tory haul drastically:

- Widespread anti-Tory tactical voting (tactical voting favourable to the Tories is mainly already baked in via Farage's partial withdrawal - apart from Scotland, some BP->Con switchers in Lab marginals & a handful of heavily Jewish seats, maybe?)

- High levels of voter registration by young people may work against them....but high levels of registration doesn't necessarily mean high youth turnout & some of those registering will be keen Brexiteers or anti-Corbyn

- Turnout is an imponderable, particularly if there's bad weather: lots of elderly folk staying at home might damage the Tories, but many will have postal votes & it might be other groups (busy family people or disillusioned youth) who don't turn out.

- Events such as an NHS crisis or Boris scandal could harm the Tories....but other events could harm Labour or other parties (e.g. Chief Rabbi today)

 

The exit polls will be the first semi-reliable indicator, I suppose, but even they might not be as reliable as usual given the complexities (e.g. will they take account of differential turnout by age-group, which couldn't be predicted accurately until the day?)