FT General Election Poll 2019

[Heathrow fox]

Here’s a scenario.Labour get a majority,they put the minimum wage up to £10 an hour.They run a second referendum and remain wins.The UK now has the second highest minimum wage in Europe.Second only to Luxembourg.Cue an almighty spike in immigration from eastern Europe.Good luck explaining that one to your core vote Labour.

[Lionator]

2 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Here’s a scenario.Labour get a majority,they put the minimum wage up to £10 an hour.They run a second referendum and remain wins.The UK now has the second highest minimum wage in Europe.Second only to Luxembourg.Cue an almighty spike in immigration from eastern Europe.Good luck explaining that one to your core vote Labour.

Project fear. 

[Foxin_Mad]

44 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

Nationalisation, ie public ownership of predominantly public utilities, is not the same as public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - it's not like the FTSE 100 or Amazon are suddenly going to be in the hands of the workers or the state.

They wernt originally going to nationalise BT. Now they are... for free broadband for the many. I dont trust them they are crazy liars who will stop at nothing to get power, keep it and push their Marxist idealologies. 

 

They are extremely dangerous to the normal working class or middle class person with a house job and car. That is us all at risk with Labour I hope voters see that.

 

Labour talk of the many they claim to represent, the bottom 10% whose lives they claim they will improve are not the majority....again another Labour lie.

 

They also propose any business with over 250 workers, regardless of profit will have to give 10% shares to workers who will most likely need to be in a union club, Upton £500 dividends for profits go to workers, anymore to the state. I presume the state and workers (unions) will also be underwriting the losses and taking risk on investment in said business too....(no I thought not!). 

 

It leads to one of 2 things, companies with more than 250 workers lay off some staff or they relocate to a less Marxist country. Where would they stop?

 

It does raise a good question for the many large employers who are multinationals like Amazon, are they forced to give 10% of their UK profits to workers(unions) on top of more tax?

 

Absolute bonkers nonsense.

Edited 1 December 2019 by Foxin_Mad

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

Absolute bonkers nonsense.

 

Don't put yourself down like that. You're not that bad. 

[Foxin_Mad]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Don't put yourself down like that. You're not that bad. 

No I'm far far worse 😁👍

 

Especially ranting on the pitfalls of the current Labour party and the manifesto. Give me Blair or Brown anyday...even Milliband.

Edited 1 December 2019 by Foxin_Mad

[theessexfox]

@Salisbury Fox @Foxin_Mad I understand your fears of pretty strong democratic socialist policies of Labour, I just find that calling them Marxist devalues the arguments a little. I think it's fair to say that the UK under Corbyn and McDonnell wouldn't look like anything set out by Marx, whilst still potentially being bad for business and being funded by unsustainable levels of borrowing.

[Foxin_Mad]

Just now, theessexfox said:

@Salisbury Fox @Foxin_Mad I understand your fears of pretty strong democratic socialist policies of Labour, I just find that calling them Marxist devalues the arguments a little. I think it's fair to say that the UK under Corbyn and McDonnell wouldn't look like anything set out by Marx, whilst still potentially being bad for business and being funded by unsustainable levels of borrowing.

Do you trust them to stop there though?

You might I dont. I think it would based on the manifesto be very Marxist. 

 

When their plans are not working, the economy is flunked. Where do they go next? Who do they go after to fund their schemes?

 

People dont trust Boris which I understand, but to pretend that Corbyn and McDonnell are bastions of honesty is laughable.

 

Those 2 are Marxists at heart,  they admit it. To me their manifesto has all the hallmarks of state control of the means of production. Its pretty dangerous particularly when your plans are based on unsustainable borrowing, pie in the sky growth on an economy 75% funded by the square mile who Old Labour openly despise. It's not going to end well, it really isn't.

 

[Heathrow fox]

21 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Project fear. 

Project fear that Labour actually win 😂I would usually love Labour to win,not with there current position on Brexit though.Where I live it’s only the big 3 running.Even the lady who stands for saving the NHS isn’t bothering this time.I would’ve voted for her.So I’m a bit buggered really.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 minute ago, theessexfox said:

@Salisbury Fox @Foxin_Mad I understand your fears of pretty strong democratic socialist policies of Labour, I just find that calling them Marxist devalues the arguments a little. I think it's fair to say that the UK under Corbyn and McDonnell wouldn't look like anything set out by Marx, whilst still potentially being bad for business and being funded by unsustainable levels of borrowing.

I appreciate what you are saying, but given that McDonnell has described himself as a Marxist in the recent past I don’t share your view.  He may have a different hair style now, but I just do not believe that a core belief like that changes over time.  It is an issue of trust, which whilst Boris rightly gets stick on here for, I think it is also relevant to the debate for Labour too.

[Nick]

Nationalising public services and the state controlling the means of production....

 

Lets not get the two confused now or the thread will be full of facepalm gifs for the next 3 pages.

 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Nationalising public services and the state controlling the means of production....

 

Lets not get the two confused now or the thread will be full of facepalm gifs for the next 3 pages.

 

 

I think we have already established that given that I agreed with Essex fox’s post. Doesn’t alter the fact that McDonnell is a self confessed Marxist though does it? So are we not allowed to trust Boris with the NHS, but we are McDonnell with the economy?

[Foxin_Mad]

8 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Nationalising public services and the state controlling the means of production....

 

Lets not get the two confused now or the thread will be full of facepalm gifs for the next 3 pages.

 

 

10% of PRIVATE businesses with a workforce over 250 people isn't public service the last time I looked. State control over BT Openreach which controls broadband pricing at the same time as liquidating every competitor that charges a monthly fee. Facepalms indeed.

 

Nationalisation of private Business at a rate plucked out of thin air by parliament is also Illegal.

 

If you are going to get confused over that, we will certainly have plenty of pages of facepalm and roll eyes if that's how you wish to roll!

 

 

[Nick]

15 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I think we have already established that given that I agreed with Essex fox’s post. Doesn’t alter the fact that McDonnell is a self confessed Marxist though does it? So are we not allowed to trust Boris with the NHS, but we are McDonnell with the economy?

Excellent news on the first statement but the second part is an argument you are having with yourself or someone else but not me.

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

10% of PRIVATE businesses with a workforce over 250 people isn't public service the last time I looked. State control over BT Openreach which controls broadband pricing at the same time as liquidating every competitor that charges a monthly fee. Facepalms indeed.

 

Nationalisation of private Business at a rate plucked out of thin air by parliament is also Illegal.

 

If you are going to get confused over that, we will certainly have plenty of pages of facepalm and roll eyes if that's how you wish to roll!

 

 

I’m not confused.

 

Public Services are Services that serve the public. When you privatise these services, they arguably no longer do that effectively, they instead serve the interests of private business as profit is their first point of function. 

 

I’m ending this now because I’ve only ever argued that calling Corbyn a Marxist is inaccurate and explained why - which now seems to be understood. Any other argument you are having is with someone else.

[Foxin_Mad]

11 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I’m not confused.

 

Public Services are Services that serve the public. When you privatise these services, they arguably no longer do that effectively, they instead serve the interests of private business as profit is their first point of function. 

 

I’m ending this now because I’ve only ever argued that calling Corbyn a Marxist is inaccurate and explained why - which now seems to be understood. Any other argument you are having is with someone else.

You are wrong though - in my opinion. He is a Marxist. You can stop your self righteousness right there. You are not the oracle, people can have a different view to the left.

 

Again I am talking about the private business (invested in and risks taken by private investors to grow) they are taking 10% to give to their union buddies (which keeps being brushed under the carpet) This is the beginnings of state control of the means of production, Corbyn and McDonnell controlled by Milne and the unions are despicable spiteful people who hate aspiration and success. I dont trust them not to take that further especially when all their spending and pie in the sky growth goes tuts up.

 

I would like to see evidence that our water, gas, electricity and telecoms are serving the public any less well than those in public ownership. Rail is about the only one I can see that may benefit, but more unionization on government control from a party that cant even make a coherent Brexit policy seems quite laughable really.

 

It's all pie in the sky. The manifesto is an utter disaster and nonsense. Even the IMF says it's not affordable and figures are optimistic.

[Guest MattP]

 

I think Richard Burgon is my favourite politician now.

 

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

I would like to see evidence that our water, gas, electricity and telecoms are serving the public any less well than those in public ownership. Rail is about the only one I can see that may benefit, but more unionization on government control from a party that cant even make a coherent Brexit policy seems quite laughable really.

 

Did you know that many of our privatised power and rail companies are not just foreign-owned (most are foreign-owned) but are also fully or partially owned by the public sector.....of other countries?!

 

EDF = Electricité de France = The French Electricity Board

Scottish Power is Spanish-owned

E.On is German-owned etc.

https://www.lovemoney.com/guides/22318/who-owns-british-gas-sse-npower-and-the-rest-of-the-uks-big-energy-companies

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trains-uk-railways-renationalise-countries-operators-companies-a9058961.html

 

"Govia runs Thameslink, Southern, Great Northern and Gatwick Express. The firm is a joint venture between Go-Ahead group and French company Keolis, itself 70 per cent owned by the French National Railways Corporation. Arriva UK Trains is behind the operators, Chiltern, CrossCountry, London Overground, Grand Central, and Northern. It runs around a quarter of all British train operating companies, and is part of German firm Deutsche Bahn, in which the German state is the biggest shareholder".

 

Makes you proud of the genius of the European public sector, er, I mean the British private sector, eh? 

 

22 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

It's all pie in the sky. The manifesto is an utter disaster and nonsense. Even the IMF says it's not affordable and figures are optimistic.

 

Are you confusing the IMF with the IFS?

IMF = International Monetary Fund, a global institution intervening on a large scale in economies worldwide

IFS = A respected British independent research institute

 

The IFS has indeed said that Labour's plans and figures lack credibility. It has said the same about Tory plans and figures.

 

If the IMF has commented, could you provide a link? 

I did a quick Google News search for "IMF" and "Labour". It linked to irrelevant stuff and to coverage of 163 economists saying Labour has better plans for the UK economy.

 

It also linked to this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50502062

 

"Labour is part of a now-shared consensus across every single party, the IMF and finance ministries across the world, that currently low interest rates charged on government borrowing should be used to fund substantial investments. Labour has used this opportunity to push the radicalism of its 2017 manifesto much further with about £140bn extra in spending a year, versus for example £80bn a year from the LibDems, and tens of billions from the Conservatives".

[Milo]

South Western train staff on strike for a MONTH. 

 

For those too young to remember, this was a fairly common event in years gone by. 

 

And if these mad socialists get their way, my bet is that it will be commonplace once again. Total misery. 

 

(Imagine the unions holding control of your broadband!! So when you can’t get in to work cos the trains are on strike, you can’t even chill with PornHub when you’re stuck at home).

 

Would highly recommend that you find yourself a copy of Carry on at your Convenience, an award winning documentary on the social state of 1970’s Britain under a highly unionised and socialist leaning regime...

 

 

My hope is that Labour get wiped out in the GE, break up and a new, liberal/left emerges from the ashes that can bring some normality to this madness. 

[Alf Bentley]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think Richard Burgon is my favourite politician now.

 

 

Much as I share your low opinion of Burgon and amusement at his clueless grimace there, it would have been more educational if the clip had included his response to the question, not just his gurning.

 

If he knew sod all about Labour's record in Wales, he could have said that (in more diplomatic terms). Though he should have boned up on it as the Plaid bloke went in hard on Labour during the previous debate.

Inevitable, I suppose, as most of the seats that Plaid might take are held by Labour (or LDs), not Tories....though the YouGov poll showed the Tories coming through the middle to take Ynys Mon, Plaid's No. 1 target seat.

 

After YouGov, I read that Labour planned to field a few more "northern / Leave-sympathetic voices" to appeal to voters in Lab Leave seats.....and hoped they didn't have Burgon in mind! 

I didn't see the debate but haven't been impressed with him before. Long-Bailey did well at the previous debate, I thought, and surely they have other "northern voices" they could field?

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Milo said:

South Western train staff on strike for a MONTH. 

 

Would highly recommend that you find yourself a copy of Carry on at your Convenience, an award winning documentary on the social state of 1970’s Britain under a highly unionised and socialist leaning regime...

 

 

"Carry on at your convenience"? Part of a series?

 

As for a return to the 1970s....well, I wouldn't like to go the whole hog, but a partial return would be OK. We now live in a country where capital gets an ever larger share of profits and labour gets an ever smaller share.

Partly because, while unions may have been too powerful and irresponsible at times 40-50 years ago, they're too weak and powerless now - so we have millions living in in-work poverty....and fewer strikes than at any time for 120 years!!!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/30/strikes-in-uk-fall-to-lowest-level-since-records-began-in-1893

"The number of workers who went on strike in Britain last year fell to the lowest level since the 1890s, when Queen Victoria was on the throne".

 

As an aside re. SW Trains.....owned by the State of Hong Kong, according to the Independent link I posted earlier.

That list in the Independent is an eye-opener: the vast majority of "our" rail companies are fully or partly publicly-owned....by foreign states.

[Jon the Hat]

20 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Naturally awful events like Friday will always be politicised, but it is utterly deplorable that Patel and Johnson are using the London Bridge attacks as fodder when it's the exact opposite of what Jack Merritt would seemingly have wanted. Not to mention the fact that they are outright lying about cases and facts that can be easily researched.

 

Sick to death of Patel in particular, her draconian ideas are not going to solve anything. Yes Abbot isn't a damn sight better either, but that doesn't make Patel any more appealing.  

Like it or not, Priti Patel is much closer to the mainstream views of the nation than any home secretary for years.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

57 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I think Richard Burgon is my favourite politician now.

 

Let me guess, the laughs were added in by the editor 

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

After YouGov, I read that Labour planned to field a few more "northern / Leave-sympathetic voices" to appeal to voters in Lab Leave seats.....and hoped they didn't have Burgon in mind! 

I didn't see the debate but haven't been impressed with him before. Long-Bailey did well at the previous debate, I thought, and surely they have other "northern voices" they could field?

If the answer to any question is Burgon you are in trouble

 

The change of tactic seems obvious and it's clear they must be looking at some disastrous internal polling.

 

If the Tories do win a majority they'll be some serious questions to ask about how and why they sold out their leave voters for remain ones. 

[Guest MattP]

21 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Naturally awful events like Friday will always be politicised, but it is utterly deplorable that Patel and Johnson are using the London Bridge attacks as fodder when it's the exact opposite of what Jack Merritt would seemingly have wanted. Not to mention the fact that they are outright lying about cases and facts that can be easily researched.

 

Sick to death of Patel in particular, her draconian ideas are not going to solve anything. Yes Abbot isn't a damn sight better either, but that doesn't make Patel any more appealing.  

Who knows whether her ideas will solve anything. We do need to try something different though as what we are trying now isn't working.

 

As for what Jack Merritt wanted, that shouldn't really matter here, what matters is what the public thinks and what keeps the public safe.

 

His beliefs were obviously sincere and passionate but he lost his own life because of them. I doubt there is any widespread public desire to try and rehabilitate people who just a few years wanted to commit mass murder because they think their religion tells them to do so.

 

The risk is just too high, as far too many people and families already have found out.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

If the Tories do win a majority they'll be some serious questions to ask about how and why they sold out their leave voters for remain ones. 

 

If the Tories win a majority by taking a swathe of Labour seats in deindustralised parts of the North/Midlands, I'm sure serious questions will be asked.

Presenting it as a simple Leave/Remain question would be simplistic, though. Policy & presentation across the board would need questioning, not just Brexit stance.

 

Anyway, if the argument is for a clearer Brexit stance, there are arguments that it should have been a Remain, not a Leave stance. After all, almost 70% of Labour voters went Remain in 2016, didn't they? And an overt Remain stance might have brought more Lib Dem & moderate Tory voters on board? Personally, I think they were right to try to straddle both camps - and the failings lie in not promoting other policies earlier to appeal to trad Lab voters in the North/Midlands, including addressing controversial issues like immigration, never mind public investment......and the problems in that area date back to them not doing enough for such areas when Blair/Brown were in government, not just Miliband & Corbyn not getting through to potential voters.

 

Anyway, this election is far from over yet. Sod all chance of Labour winning a majority, but a hung parliament is still distinctly possible & requires comparatively small shifts in voting intention, tactical voting and/or differential turnout.

 

If the Tories do win a majority, they'll pretty soon face some massive questions, too - potentially questions that could destroy their party if they get it wrong, in a massively difficult situation.

How many Lab switchers in North/Midlands would stick with the Tories if life doesn't improve - or gets noticeably worse - post-Brexit? And how many Tory moderates switching to Lab/LD would return to the fold under that scenario?

 

High stakes stuff - not just this election, but even more so the next 1-2 years as the Brexit negotiation process grinds on....or comes to a juddering, damaging halt.