FT General Election Poll 2019

[Stadt]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

mid/late-period Weimar Republic

At least that was pretty fun while it lasted, this isn't.

[Mike Oxlong]

You know things are bad when the Tories start making Dianne Abbott look competent on numbers. 

Edited 26 November 2019 by Mike Oxlong

[Mike Oxlong]

[Jon the Hat]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's possibly the most naive, complacent comment I've ever read, Jon.

 

Try reading the article with an open mind and apply some common sense when considering the possible consequences.

I think believing the worst possible outcome is ridiculous.  There will be a deal or an extension no doubt.

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

The withdrawal agreement means that things carry on for a year. No problems in that time. 

If we get no trade deal at that point then it will smash the econony, people's jobs and the Tory party to pieces. But Boris will sign anything to avoid that, much as he did with the withdrawel agreement.

 

Any extension to the transition period has to be negotiated by 1st July 2020, so 5 months after we formally leave the EU. 

 

Of course, Johnson has rhetorically committed to no extension, and would surely find it tough to persuade his increasingly Hard Brexit parliamentary party to allow him to ditch that commitment so quickly.

 

As the article explains, it seems pretty inevitable that any outcome from there will cause the "smashing" of economy & jobs (& many other things) that you mention. Whether that outcome is a December 2020 exit with no trade deal or some minimalist deal, it would surely only be a case of the precise scale and nature of the devastation. The only way of achieving a tolerable deal that didn't cause major damage would be to opt for very close EU-UK alignment.....and that's hardly going to be acceptable to his MPs, members or voters, is it?

 

If the Tories win a majority & pass the WA, I'm sure we'll have a fairly calm few months. But if, from July, our limited and dangerous options are on display, the economic damage is likely to start then, surely?

Anyway, nuff said. People just need to read that article and wake the fvck up.

 

Edited 26 November 2019 by Alf Bentley

[twoleftfeet]

24 minutes ago, bovril said:

I was going to write a similar thing.

I think people seriously underestimate how dangerous some of the potential consequences of Brexit are. Like a continued rise in English, Scottish and Irish nationalism. Meanwhile we're arguing over who's going to tax us more and what wacky things politicians and their supporters have posted on twitter. 
All feels a bit last days of the Roman Empire. 

The continued rise in nationalism? its never gone away. New labour started the process with devolution for three of the four home nations the fourth wont need devolution when the others have left the union. As we have seen that a referendum far be it from once in a life time event is going to continue to be raised regardless of the margin of victory remainers say 4%  was too close to call so want a second bite of the cherry and the SNP think 10% was close enough to need another vote.

I think that the break up of the union was inevitable once devolution was announced and I am not sure that it would be a bad thing. Not for the English disastrous for the loyalist section of the population of Northern Ireland in terms of identity, the end of the Barnet formula may mean that both Northern Ireland and Wales would need to stay in Europe in a bid to make up the short falls in tax revenue raised and government spending. Scotland could well be fine depending on oil revenues.

5 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

The withdrawal agreement means that things carry on for a year. No problems in that time. 

If we get no trade deal at that point then it will smash the econony, people's jobs and the Tory party to pieces. But Boris will sign anything to avoid that, much as he did with the withdrawel agreement.

The deal has never been the deal which is why leaving with a No deal now is preferable to either the Boris or May  deals. the withdrawal deal is only like the phoney war its a stop gap and nothing more but the terms agreed in the withdrawal agreement are the starting terms of any long term deal and unless terms that are at least as favourable as those offered to new markets are offered in the withdrawal agreement then we would be better off to start on the basis that no deal and be treated as a new market. Bearing in mind we have historical trade levels so they know how much surplus trade they already do with the UK. Or maybe in the future just England

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think believing the worst possible outcome is ridiculous.  There will be a deal or an extension no doubt.

 

Seriously, Jon. I'd just advise you to read that article with an open mind and consider the various places it could take this country.

 

If @Izzy took his all-conquering kids' team to play Barcelona at the Nou Camp, and opted to only field 7 players, all of them with one leg tied behind their back, it would be reasonable to expect the worst possible outcome.

 

Sorry, Izzy, even a top-drawer manager like you couldn't overcome odds like those! 

[bovril]

Just now, twoleftfeet said:

The continued rise in nationalism? its never gone away. New labour started the process with devolution for three of the four home nations the fourth wont need devolution when the others have left the union. As we have seen that a referendum far be it from once in a life time event is going to continue to be raised regardless of the margin of victory remainers say 4%  was too close to call so want a second bite of the cherry and the SNP think 10% was close enough to need another vote.

I think that the break up of the union was inevitable once devolution was announced and I am not sure that it would be a bad thing. Not for the English disastrous for the loyalist section of the population of Northern Ireland in terms of identity, the end of the Barnet formula may mean that both Northern Ireland and Wales would need to stay in Europe in a bid to make up the short falls in tax revenue raised and government spending. Scotland could well be fine depending on oil revenues.

 

You're right, nationalism has never completely gone away in the UK. The country is made up of territories that have either in the distant and not so distant past seen bloodshed. Anybody with their finger even slightly on the pulse would have understood that there were longstanding tensions bubbling under the surface made worse by economic insecurity, austerity and inequality.

 

So quite why, post 2014 referendum, the last three British PMs have played with fire and seemingly tried their very hardest to drive a wedge between the four countries and Ireland is beyond me. Apparently May's late opposition to no-deal came when she realised the 'existential threat' it posed to the Union. No fvcking shit, Sherlock. For all the talk of Remainers not granting 'losers consent', not once did Westminster try and build consent for their reckless project with countries in the Union that had voted to remain. Now Johnson is willing to effectively cede N. Ireland and risk inflaming tensions more so we can hashtag Get Brexit Done and 'get on with our lives', which is obviously exactly what will happen. And we can't risk Brexiters rioting....

 

[HappyHamza]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

You're right, nationalism has never completely gone away in the UK. The country is made up of territories that have either in the distant and not so distant past seen bloodshed. Anybody with their finger even slightly on the pulse would have understood that there were longstanding tensions bubbling under the surface made worse by economic insecurity, austerity and inequality.

 

So quite why, post 2014 referendum, the last three British PMs have played with fire and seemingly tried their very hardest to drive a wedge between the four countries and Ireland is beyond me. Apparently May's late opposition to no-deal came when she realised the 'existential threat' it posed to the Union. No fvcking shit, Sherlock. For all the talk of Remainers not granting 'losers consent', not once did Westminster try and build consent for their reckless project with countries in the Union that had voted to remain. Now Johnson is willing to effectively cede N. Ireland and risk inflaming tensions more so we can hashtag Get Brexit Done and 'get on with our lives', which is obviously exactly what will happen. And we can't risk Brexiters rioting....

 

It's not the red faced white haired brexiteers they should be worried out. Its the u45s that have jobs at risk if no deal happens. The country will be in a dangerous place if that were to occur imo.

[Jon the Hat]

32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Seriously, Jon. I'd just advise you to read that article with an open mind and consider the various places it could take this country.

 

If @Izzy took his all-conquering kids' team to play Barcelona at the Nou Camp, and opted to only field 7 players, all of them with one leg tied behind their back, it would be reasonable to expect the worst possible outcome.

 

Sorry, Izzy, even a top-drawer manager like you couldn't overcome odds like those! 

I started but I think I’ll die of boredom before the end.  I struggle to trust someone who can’t get to the ****ing point quicker than that.

[Mike Oxlong]

Apparently we are going to have 650 more MPs in parliament as of 13th December

[Guest MattP]

Neil v Corbyn at 7pm on BBC1 - If he's lucky it will have been recorded yesterday

[Kopfkino]

31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Possibly the best article I've ever read on Brexit. Brexit (particularly the way it has been handled and is being handled) really is one of the most stupid and dangerous policies pursued by an advanced nation in literally centuries, isn't it?

Ivan Rogers has done many a fantastic commentary about Brexit, it is indeed another one.

 

But sorry Alf, but I really must contest that. You've sort of caveated it with particularly the way its been handled but it is entirely the way it has been handled. The fact it has been handled by a majoritarian system with no majority focused solely on short-term political strategy, completely unwilling to be honest about the trade-offs and decisions that needed to be made has turned Brexit into an abomination and the current path that is seemingly to be pursued is a madness. But Brexit in and of itself, whereby the UK leaves the EU, is not one of the most stupid and dangerous policies pursued by an advanced nation in centuries. To say such a thing is to deny the UK a choice on its entire European policy.

 

Macron's interview (woefully under reported in the mainstream in the UK) was fantastic for a number of reasons (it was far beyond the intellectual capability of our political leaders but probably went too far as a political actor) but his chat about Europe was instructive of the UK's future relationship with Europe whether it leaves the EU or not. Of course it's one man's view of things and not a definitive of where things end up but with the challenges the EU faces and a future Germany likely to be more sympathetic to, though not completely in sync with, the Macron viewpoint then it's probably not far off the eventual direction of travel. Which actually makes it important that the UK polity examines and considers its relationship with Europe. The referendum made a mess of doing that, instead producing a typical UK political campaign lacking real high-level discussion. 

 

What the referendum and pretty much everything that has followed has shown is that even for EU supporters in the UK (I don't count people that deck themselves in paraphernalia and march through London in that, we already know all they know about the EU is it stops them needing a visa) the EU is primarily a project of economic benefit and we must suck up the rest of it. Very rarely have we seen a real, solid, joined-up strategic vision for how the UK should position itself within the EU and what the future of the EU looks like (even people like Hesseltine are very loose on this). So often it just comes back to GDP and that's highly problematic for the UK to be a future active member of the EU which is what Remain folk should want. It should go beyond economics and it should go beyond boring superficial platitudes about being stronger together and working with our European partners on x, y, or z. 

 

But what Macron talks about is essentially that the EU must abandon its obsession with economics and free markets to become a genuine strategic political actor in its "own neighbourhood" and then the world. His vision is that the EU moves from a technocratic economic actor towards a pooled defence and military union, his talk of regaining European "military sovereignty" makes this clear of day. Of course Macron is a bit of a De Gaulleist, dare I say a bit of a French imperialist and so it is very useful in the Franco-German power struggle to move the EU away from the German economic hegemony towards the French military and defence especially with the UK's departure leaving the French by far and away the most powerful nation on this front. 

 

Yes, of course, Macron's words are quite a typical French view and are the words of him and not the EU, it doesn't set the direction but as he says Europe needs to wake up and for the EU to survive with any relevance it may well need a Macron-esque reform, it will definitely need economic reform. So the UK has to be asking whether it can be a part of this. Macron talks a lot about European sovereignty via military sovereignty and this is the key quote, "But the question of whether we share the same agenda, in other words of pooling more in order to move towards a system that is somehow looser, softer, less and less strategic, I’m not in favour of that. I’m in favour of making things more effective, deciding more quickly, more clearly, changing the dogma and ideology that drive us collectively today. And to have a more sovereign, more ambitious project for Europe’s future, which is more democratic". Can the UK really sign up to that? I think most, including Macron, would say the UK can't and given that even those that are explicitly pro-EU often duck such an issue it's hard to argue otherwise. Without, then, a two-tiered EU, the UK is a big problem for the success of the EU unless we have a radical national change in attitude towards the European project. Of course others will also be an obstacle.

 

It would surely therefore be a more stupid and dangerous policy to keep committing the UK to something of that ilk when it isn't necessarily on the same page. EU Act 2011 made provisions for a referendum in such circumstances but you're going to get the pain and the absurdity whenever you do it. The UK has to be able to Brexit and its a perfectly legitimate policy choice if handled correctly.

[Alf Bentley]

50 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I started but I think I’ll die of boredom before the end.  I struggle to trust someone who can’t get to the ****ing point quicker than that.

 

As an open-minded man, surely worth devoting half an hour to challenging your own thinking about the most important issue for decades? A little light bedtime reading.... 

 

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but your response reminds me of those blokes at the football who, when they see our intricate midfield passing and manoeuvring, shout....

"Just get it forward! Get it in the box!"....."Get Brexit done!"

 

Edit: Sorry, @Jon the Hat, not meaning to be rude there & "Get Brexit done" may not be a phrase you've used personally - it just winds me up as a political slogan as it's bollocks to think that Brexit will be truly "done" in January in any meaningful sense, whether you believe in it or not.

 

Edited 26 November 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Alf Bentley]

@Kopfkino

 

Do you have a readily available link to decent coverage of Macron's interview? If not, I'm sure Google will locate it.

 

I'm shamefully out of touch with non-British news and politics, though real life is busy, in my defence...

[Kopfkino]

23 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

@Kopfkino

 

Do you have a readily available link to decent coverage of Macron's interview? If not, I'm sure Google will locate it.

 

I'm shamefully out of touch with non-British news and politics, though real life is busy, in my defence...

https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english

The Economist published the full transcript in both French and English, you can read it free with an account unless you've used up all your free articles. If you can't get it or don't want to sign up I will send it to you. The actual news coverage that I saw though was woeful, only interested in his 'Nato brain death' quote, like genuinely really poor. 

 

That's fair, tI'd say he UK news has become so self-obsessed because of Brexit so its very easy. You should try being out of touch with British news and politics, I've found it wonderful being as informed as the average person. 

[David Guiza]

Andrew Neil would make me wet myself if he interviewed me.

 

As a side note, something ironic about him grilling Corbyn on antisemitism when he hired Holocaust denier, David Irving, during his times as editor of the Sunday Times. 

[Legend_in_blue]

This is my definition of a bad evenings work for Corbyn. 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Well that was disastrous.

 

How can you not bring yourself to just say "Rothschild Zionist" conspiracy theories are antisemitic? Why do you need to be pushed into it?

 

The Waaspi women stuff was hilarious.

 

"How are you going to pay for it"

"Let me say why we doing this"

 

We got there in the end, he's borrowing it as we all knew - what's the fcuking point of a fully costed manifesto?

 

Swinson and Boris next week

[Sampson]

Yeah. Corbyn was a bit car-crash. He really doesnt help himself though.

 

His constant "Andrew, let me explain" while trying to completely dodge a fair question just comes across like he's looking down his nose at people. 

 

He came across as very cold, snobby and self-righteous.

Edited 26 November 2019 by Sampson

[twoleftfeet]

Should there be a place for religion in this election? Are religions by there very nature anti so many of our other libities

[The Guvnor]

Poor old Jezzer, as expected, a car crash of an interview.

 

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

This is my definition of a bad evenings work for Corbyn. 

Within half an hour we got...

 

No apology for antisemitism.

Unable to say straight away Rothschild conspiracies come under that.

He has no idea who will back his own deal.

Admitted borrowing more money than the manifesto said.

Admitted someone on as little as 14k might pay £400 more in tax.

Probably wouldn't kill off the ISIS leader.

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Suppose you'll speak highly of the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has today invited leaders from all faiths to come to the him and talk about an concerns they have.

 

Mr Corbyn also said of his party that Labour's "door will be open to all faith leaders".

"Chief Rabbi welcome. Archbishop of Canterbury welcome. Those from the Hindu community are all very welcome."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50555756

A few hours later.....

 

It takes him five times to be able to agree (under duress) that claiming "Rothschild Zionists run Israel and world governments" is anti-Semitic, then he refuses to apologise to the Jewish community.

 

He's either an antisemite or completely thick as mince.

[David Guiza]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Within half an hour we got...

 

No apology for antisemitism.

Unable to say straight away Rothschild conspiracies come under that.

He has no idea who will back his own deal.

Admitted borrowing more money than the manifesto said.

Admitted someone on as little as 14k might pay £400 more in tax.

Probably wouldn't kill off the ISIS leader.

Really not ideal, was it? That said, I am looking forward to the (hopefully) Boris meltdown and call out on lies next week. 

 

That kind of interview really requires succinct answers, and at times simply yes or no and Corbyn just doesn't seem to do that.

 

I do feel for him on the question that is often brought up regarding killing a terrorist leader etc. I wholeheartedly agree that taking said person alive would always be preferable, you get far more from a live capture and trial than a dead body. The problem is that Corbyn would never just say 'yes, i'd make the call' because he's so principled/stubborn/ignorant depending on how you want to phrase it.