FT General Election Poll 2019

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

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.

The biggest problem Labour really have is that whilst about 70-75% of members voted remain, those 25-30% who didn't appear to be far more important to them electorally. No point whacking on 10,000 votes to the Labour tally in Islington if you lose 2,000 in Dudley, Derby and Darlington. 

 

The really strange thing is something you mention, a party I grew up winning landslides is now one that can't win the right to govern on its own.

 

Corbyn appears to have destroyed the party in terms of being one that can win a majority, places like Nuneaton, belweather seats, look set to be huge Tory majorities and his disastrous Scottish policy could see them with only one seat after next Thursday. 

 

Yet despite that he could still be PM backed by others. Is that now the only future for the Labour party?

[Guest MattP]

Although Burgon is far better than this I suppose. 

 

**** me, she could be home secretary by next week

 

Why doesn't she just as admit she hasn't bothered to read it? Why try and pretend you have when it's obvious you haven't. 

[Facecloth]

@Strokes you piece of crap* 

 

*joke from the Iheanacho thread.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

The biggest problem Labour really have is that whilst about 70-75% of members voted remain, those 25-30% who didn't appear to be far more important to them electorally. No point whacking on 10,000 votes to the Labour tally in Islington if you lose 2,000 in Dudley, Derby and Darlington. 

 

The really strange thing is something you mention, a party I grew up winning landslides is now one that can't win the right to govern on its own.

 

Corbyn appears to have destroyed the party in terms of being one that can win a majority, places like Nuneaton, belweather seats, look set to be huge Tory majorities and his disastrous Scottish policy could see them with only one seat after next Thursday. 

 

Yet despite that he could still be PM backed by others. Is that now the only future for the Labour party?

 

Who knows what the future holds. But in the 80s & early 90s, people wondered whether Labour could ever win an election again......then in the late 90s & noughties they wondered whether the Tories could ever do so....

 

You grew up to Labour winning landslides. I grew up to Thatcher winning landslides.

 

I think that I'm right in saying that Attlee, Wilson & Blair are the only Labour politicians to ever win a majority? Christ knows where we'll be in a year, though, never mind 5 or 10 years time.

[Facecloth]

Two main parties are neck and neck in this poll. First time that's happen isn't it?

[davieG]

BBC

 

Labour has announced plans to slash rail fares by 33% and simplify ticket prices for part-time workers if it wins the election on 12 December.

The party also wants to make train travel free for young people under the age of 16 and build a central online booking portal with no booking fees.

The proposal is part of broader plans by the party to nationalise the UK's train system.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50621621

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Facecloth said:

Two main parties are neck and neck in this poll. First time that's happen isn't it?

 

Don't do that to me, Flannel!

 

For a split second, I thought that you were talking about a national poll, not Foxes Talk! 

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Don't do that to me, Flannel!

 

For a split second, I thought that you were talking about a national poll, not Foxes Talk! 

Which is more important, obviously!  

[David Guiza]

45 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

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

I don't doubt that, but, to paraphrase Super Hans, the mainstream also like Coldplay, Man Utd, Love Island, Primark and KFC, I don't necessarily trust them to be correct all of the time. 

 

There is conflicting evidence to suggest that being tougher on punishment actually reduces crimes in any way, and I'd imagine that is even less of a factor when the assailant is willing to die for the cause. There is no doubt that something needs to change in respect of the way we deal with criminals in this country and the awful events of Friday are evidence enough for that, but Patel cannot see beyond punishment rather than cause. Leading legal academics and professionals are in agreement and, with respect, I trust their opinion more than the 'mainstream views of the nation'. 

 

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

As above I don't dispute that something needs to change, but I really don't think she is the answer. Saying things like 'criminals should literally feel terror' play well as a soundbite to those who wish to hear things like that, but won't do anything to deter crime, particular things like gang/knife crime. Furthermore, her opinions on human rights are a huge concern and not in keeping with where I and others would like to see us head. She just seems to be playing to those who you see in the Daily Mail comments section with a sadistic love of capital punishment and want us to introduce Guantanamo style questioning, rather than investing time, effort and money into limiting/preventing the root cause. She has a consistent record for voting against basic human rights which is an appalling fact for somebody in her position in a first world, developed, nation to have. 

 

Of course it matters to a degree in terms of the reporting from the MSM and the comments from the PM and other leading Government figures. All they are offering is populist posturing and lying (AGAIN) about their failures. Yes he lost his life as a result of his work, but from what I understand the work that Learning Together do in respect of reform and rehabilitation has been praised by barristers, solicitors and alike and I'm sure there have been countless successes over time. To ignore the work that groups like Learning Together do, and the views of people like Jack Merritt, and throw the baby out with the bath water is not the answer. Why somebody like the killer in this circumstance was in the hands of Learning Together and not the Government in the first place is a far greater concern, as is the reduction in police, overcrowded prisons, lack of funding, links with Saudis etc. 

 

 

You're right, the risk is to great in certain instances, but I would be amazed if Patel's draconian proposals have any positive effect whatsoever. It's about time we listened to professionals and experts again, rather than populist demand. That goes for a wide range of subjects too, not just defence. 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, David Guiza said:

I don't doubt that, but, to paraphrase Super Hans, the mainstream also like Coldplay, Man Utd, Love Island, Primark and KFC, I don't necessarily trust them to be correct all of the time. 

 

There is conflicting evidence to suggest that being tougher on punishment actually reduces crimes in any way, and I'd imagine that is even less of a factor when the assailant is willing to die for the cause. There is no doubt that something needs to change in respect of the way we deal with criminals in this country and the awful events of Friday are evidence enough for that, but Patel cannot see beyond punishment rather than cause. Leading legal academics and professionals are in agreement and, with respect, I trust their opinion more than the 'mainstream views of the nation'. 

 

As above I don't dispute that something needs to change, but I really don't think she is the answer. Saying things like 'criminals should literally feel terror' play well as a soundbite to those who wish to hear things like that, but won't do anything to deter crime, particular things like gang/knife crime. Furthermore, her opinions on human rights are a huge concern and not in keeping with where I and others would like to see us head. She just seems to be playing to those who you see in the Daily Mail comments section with a sadistic love of capital punishment and want us to introduce Guantanamo style questioning, rather than investing time, effort and money into limiting/preventing the root cause. She has a consistent record for voting against basic human rights which is an appalling fact for somebody in her position in a first world, developed, nation to have. 

 

Of course it matters to a degree in terms of the reporting from the MSM and the comments from the PM and other leading Government figures. All they are offering is populist posturing and lying (AGAIN) about their failures. Yes he lost his life as a result of his work, but from what I understand the work that Learning Together do in respect of reform and rehabilitation has been praised by barristers, solicitors and alike and I'm sure there have been countless successes over time. To ignore the work that groups like Learning Together do, and the views of people like Jack Merritt, and throw the baby out with the bath water is not the answer. Why somebody like the killer in this circumstance was in the hands of Learning Together and not the Government in the first place is a far greater concern, as is the reduction in police, overcrowded prisons, lack of funding, links with Saudis etc. 

 

 

You're right, the risk is to great in certain instances, but I would be amazed if Patel's draconian proposals have any positive effect whatsoever. It's about time we listened to professionals and experts again, rather than populist demand. That goes for a wide range of subjects too, not just defence. 

Sorry, but listening to the "professionals and experts" is what has us seeing a bloke who wanted to commit mass murder just a few years ago walking the streets able to commit murder just a few years later.

 

The public are well within their rights to demand better than that, if it doesn't work then so be it, we can try something else. 

 

But you can't argue that had that man been exactly where he should have been, in prison, people would not have lost their lives in that attack last week.

[Desabafar]

Deradicalistion programs for people like Khan are a vehicle for extremists to deceive people and allow proven, dangerously intoxicated people to roam amongst us

[David Guiza]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Sorry, but listening to the "professionals and experts" is what has us seeing a bloke who wanted to commit mass murder just a few years ago walking the streets able to commit murder just a few years later.

 

The public are well within their rights to demand better than that, if it doesn't work then so be it, we can try something else. 

 

But you can't argue that had that man been exactly where he should have been, in prison, people would not have lost their lives in that attack last week.

That's a hell of a jump, there is a vast degree of difference between making all criminals shudder with terror and allowing somebody who plotted to commit mass murder out with a tag. Patel has been telling outright lies about the blame of the attacker's release, the courts have a wide range of sentencing sentencing powers to ensure that people like him are not released early, which she deliberately ignored to mention. It's not the fault of professionals and experts that austerity is leading to prisoners being released early and the Government have not kept track. 

 

I don't dispute that Khan shouldn't have been in prison, however anybody (Johnson and Patel in particular) who believe that preventing terrorism is as simple as they are making out is either ignorant or stupid. Johnson and Patel have effectively been suggesting that the cause of the attack was lax sentencing and nothing else, it's abhorrent, ignorant and just wrong. 

The reason that indeterminate sentences were revoked (under Cameron in 2012), which is what Khan was serving, was that some people convicted of fairly trivial offences were being kept locked up because they could not necessarily provide evidence that they were no longer a danger to society. I don't doubt that many would agree with me that the decision to revoke that, for that reason, is correct. There is still no such thing as "automatic early release", as has been banded about by Johnson and Patel. So how exactly does that then become the fault of professionals and experts that Khan was released early?

 

Again, perhaps Patel should look beyond harsher sentences and at the failings of the past 10 years, the sweeping cuts, the failed reforms, the cuts to the police, lack of funding for rehabilitation services, drop in number of prison officers, overcrowding, inexperienced prison workers... 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, David Guiza said:

That's a hell of a jump, there is a vast degree of difference between making all criminals shudder with terror and allowing somebody who plotted to commit mass murder out with a tag. Patel has been telling outright lies about the blame of the attacker's release, the courts have a wide range of sentencing sentencing powers to ensure that people like him are not released early, which she deliberately ignored to mention. It's not the fault of professionals and experts that austerity is leading to prisoners being released early and the Government have not kept track. 

 

I don't dispute that Khan shouldn't have been in prison, however anybody (Johnson and Patel in particular) who believe that preventing terrorism is as simple as they are making out is either ignorant or stupid. Johnson and Patel have effectively been suggesting that the cause of the attack was lax sentencing and nothing else, it's abhorrent, ignorant and just wrong. 

The reason that indeterminate sentences were revoked (under Cameron in 2012), which is what Khan was serving, was that some people convicted of fairly trivial offences were being kept locked up because they could not necessarily provide evidence that they were no longer a danger to society. I don't doubt that many would agree with me that the decision to revoke that, for that reason, is correct. There is still no such thing as "automatic early release", as has been banded about by Johnson and Patel. So how exactly does that then become the fault of professionals and experts that Khan was released early?

 

Again, perhaps Patel should look beyond harsher sentences and at the failings of the past 10 years, the sweeping cuts, the failed reforms, the cuts to the police, lack of funding for rehabilitation services, drop in number of prison officers, overcrowding, inexperienced prison workers... 

I'm not defending the Tories on this at all. They are just as complicit as Labour in how soft this country has now become on crime.

 

The thing that pisses me off most about the Tories is how they have talked tough on crime and never followed through, Patel gives me a slight hope that could change but we need actions rather than words.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with people feeling terror at committing the most serious of crimes whilst also making sure people who aren't actually a danger to the public aren't locked away for years. That's the perfect balance to have.

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

That's a hell of a jump, there is a vast degree of difference between making all criminals shudder with terror and allowing somebody who plotted to commit mass murder out with a tag. Patel has been telling outright lies about the blame of the attacker's release, the courts have a wide range of sentencing sentencing powers to ensure that people like him are not released early, which she deliberately ignored to mention. It's not the fault of professionals and experts that austerity is leading to prisoners being released early and the Government have not kept track. 

 

I don't dispute that Khan shouldn't have been in prison, however anybody (Johnson and Patel in particular) who believe that preventing terrorism is as simple as they are making out is either ignorant or stupid. Johnson and Patel have effectively been suggesting that the cause of the attack was lax sentencing and nothing else, it's abhorrent, ignorant and just wrong. 

The reason that indeterminate sentences were revoked (under Cameron in 2012), which is what Khan was serving, was that some people convicted of fairly trivial offences were being kept locked up because they could not necessarily provide evidence that they were no longer a danger to society. I don't doubt that many would agree with me that the decision to revoke that, for that reason, is correct. There is still no such thing as "automatic early release", as has been banded about by Johnson and Patel. So how exactly does that then become the fault of professionals and experts that Khan was released early?

 

Again, perhaps Patel should look beyond harsher sentences and at the failings of the past 10 years, the sweeping cuts, the failed reforms, the cuts to the police, lack of funding for rehabilitation services, drop in number of prison officers, overcrowding, inexperienced prison workers... 

 

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm not defending the Tories on this at all. They are just as complicit as Labour in how soft this country has now become on crime.

 

The thing that pisses me off most about the Tories is how they have talked tough on crime and never followed through, Patel gives me a slight hope that could change but we need actions rather than words.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with people feeling terror at committing the most serious of crimes whilst also making sure people who aren't actually a danger to the public aren't locked away for years. That's the perfect balance to have.

This is an interesting debate and thanks to both of you for sticking it up here.

 

Personally, I think there's a lot of nature/nurture coming into this too from the POV of if radicals can and should have the effort put into being deradicalised by the state or whether simply isolating/punishing them and treating them as a lost cause is a better idea in terms of overall public safety now and in the future.

 

IMO the former is a better option simply because it addresses the root cause in more detail, but I honestly don't know if it would keep the public safer in the long term.

Edited 2 December 2019 by leicsmac

[Foxin_Mad]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

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? 

 

 

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".

Yes I am well aware of the ownership. Quite honestly if the stuff works I am not too concerned who runs it, would rather that than a load of union bullies holding us to ransom.

 

Yes I did quote incorrectly and meant IFS - sorry. Either way if the Tories plans are unworkable/unaffordable which they may well be the Labours are even more so. I personally think to many spending pledges are being made.

 

I cant honestly see how any economist with a non academic theoretical background can possibly find Labours plans logical/feasible though. The only case of such radicalism us Venezuela who had loads of oil....now they are skint thanks to radical plans endorsed by dear leader comrade Corbyn and vice comrade McDonnell.

[David Guiza]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm not defending the Tories on this at all. They are just as complicit as Labour in how soft this country has now become on crime.

 

The thing that pisses me off most about the Tories is how they have talked tough on crime and never followed through, Patel gives me a slight hope that could change but we need actions rather than words.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with people feeling terror at committing the most serious of crimes whilst also making sure people who aren't actually a danger to the public aren't locked away for years. That's the perfect balance to have.

I agree that there are certainly area of sentencing that need to be addressed, driving offences for one. There is however a lot more the Tories (or coalition government) need to resolve in terms of crime beforehand and the Brexit mess is going to delay any real reform too, you imagine. Particularly when it comes to things like detention times of suspects or stricter punishment etc. 

 

On a side note, here's Ken Livingstone with his foot stuck in a tube door 

https://twitter.com/2wenty4s/status/1201452503642099714

[peach0000]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50624056 

 

This his actually pretty shocking. He's not even trying to tell the truth.

[Guest MattP]

And people say Boris is using the Trump playbook.

 

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

And people say Boris is using the Trump playbook.

 

 

 

That's the sad truth of it, these two are both populist candidates just applying the same tactics to different sides of the political spectrum, it's hard to believe any claims from either side, the fact lib dems dont even seem to be knocking on the door is actually embarrassing 

[lgfualol]

1 hour ago, peach0000 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50624056 

 

This his actually pretty shocking. He's not even trying to tell the truth.

He thinks the UK is full of thick plebs, so doesnt even bother trying to tone down on the blatant lies.

Edited 2 December 2019 by lgfualol

[peach0000]

51 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

He thinks the UK is full of thick plebs, so doesnt even bother trying to tone down on the blatant lies.

My issue is that I believe I have a really good knowledge of politics. However I watched that whole interview with Marr live and only picked up on about half of those things. He says stuff with such confidence that things slip through. I reckon he would get absolutely destroyed in an interview with Andrew Neil.

[Salisbury Fox]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

And people say Boris is using the Trump playbook.

 

 

 

Geez, I take it he has not forgiven Branson for calling him out on his no seat on the train stunt. Quite embarrassing.

[davieG]

Terry Morris

 

I was watching this live and I can’t believe she called him Jeremy ****🙈😂

This just turned up on my facebook page, I have no sound so it might be rubbish. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

36 minutes ago, davieG said:

Terry Morris

 

I was watching this live and I can’t believe she called him Jeremy ****🙈😂

This just turned up on my facebook page, I have no sound so it might be rubbish. 

It's a Jeremy Hunt moment

[Foxin_Mad]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

And people say Boris is using the Trump playbook.

 

 

 

What a utter idiot. How anyone can think this numpty who has never had a proper job in his life is fit to run a nation is beyond me. He is a third rate militant, should be quashed.

 

Branson has done more for this country with his little finger than a thick militant like Corbyn has done for anyone except a few terrorists.

Edited 2 December 2019 by Foxin_Mad