FT General Election Poll 2019

[Facecloth]

56 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. 

That's months old, from the conservative leadership campaign.

[Salisbury Fox]

10 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".

Interesting article about the Fourth Rail legislation that the EU are bringing in 2023 to introduce private sector involvement and market competition on the railways.
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-railways-eu-rules-nationalise-single-market-restrictions-labour-a8968691.html

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

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 

Because the people in this country want instant gratification. Out of Europe NOW. More money into the nhs NOW. Tougher sentences NOW. We live in such a dumbed down society that people can't analyse an argument, it's either black or white, you have to nail your colours to the mast. This is the best way I've heard it described in recent times by an intellect, David Attenborough himself. It's true what Gove said, people are fed up of experts. There is no doubting that we are ****ed and it isn't all due to the politicians, it's a reflection of our overall society.

 

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1200477059350446080?s=20

[Lionator]

8 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.

Priti is a horror. My issue is that the Tories may well redistribute funding to keeping the most dangerous people in prison for longer, however this will come at the expense of funding for individuals who actually can be rehabilitated, because let's be honest they're not going to invest more into the prison system. 

 

I like your last sentence though and I think this should be something that the left and right could perhaps agree on, for once? 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Because the people in this country want instant gratification. Out of Europe NOW. More money into the nhs NOW. Tougher sentences NOW. We live in such a dumbed down society that people can't analyse an argument, it's either black or white, you have to nail your colours to the mast. This is the best way I've heard it described in recent times by an intellect, David Attenborough himself. It's true what Gove said, people are fed up of experts. There is no doubting that we are ****ed and it isn't all due to the politicians, it's a reflection of our overall society.

 

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1200477059350446080?s=20

Yep.

 

I know people like to rag on the politicians and the "elite" for putting things where they are now - and by having more of the power they do have more of the responsibility - but the fact is that the UK is still a democratic system, and as such, the democratic representatives, when they express views that are seen as extreme, are merely a reflection of the people who elected them. Those politicians wouldn't have the power they have to polarise were it not for the polarising opinions of the people who put them there.

 

Perhaps one day the whole idea of adversarial politics being the way that things have to get done will change...but who knows.

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

Because the people in this country want instant gratification. Out of Europe NOW. More money into the nhs NOW. Tougher sentences NOW. We live in such a dumbed down society that people can't analyse an argument, it's either black or white, you have to nail your colours to the mast. This is the best way I've heard it described in recent times by an intellect, David Attenborough himself. It's true what Gove said, people are fed up of experts. There is no doubting that we are ****ed and it isn't all due to the politicians, it's a reflection of our overall society.

 

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1200477059350446080?s=20

Gove said people have had enough of experts getting it wrong, not that they have had enough of experts. 

 

I can't remember a politician so often misquoted as this.

 

If we are going to have a proper educated public discourse we have to get these things accurate.

[Guest MattP]

Presume we need a full investigation into this? Can't have any doubts about foreign interference into our elections can we?

 

[StanSP]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

Presume we need a full investigation into this? Can't have any doubts about foreign interference into our elections can we?

 

Yes there can be an investigation but let's not release the dossier until after the election... 

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, MattP said:

Gove said people have had enough of experts getting it wrong, not that they have had enough of experts. 

 

I can't remember a politician so often misquoted as this.

 

If we are going to have a proper educated public discourse we have to get these things accurate.

For what it's worth Matt, given the current rigmarole that passes for analysis of scientific information in the public sphere right now I think Gove was right with the shortened quote, too.

[RobHawk]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Presume we need a full investigation into this? Can't have any doubts about foreign interference into our elections can we?

 

Agreed! 

 

But let's take a step back a minute, how would the Russians get their hands on sensitive conversations between the UK and the US.

 

There's a national security question here IF there was russian involvement.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Gove said people have had enough of experts getting it wrong, not that they have had enough of experts. 

 

I can't remember a politician so often misquoted as this.

 

If we are going to have a proper educated public discourse we have to get these things accurate.

 

He certainly referred to "experts" (by implication all of them) "saying they know what is best" (most experts deal in forecasts & consequences, not policy recommendations) and "getting it consistently wrong".

He didn't refer to any experts ever getting anything right. He goes on to express "faith in the British people" ignoring experts as a general class of people, not particular experts who've got it wrong.

 

Anyway, people can make up their own minds: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

 

Gove: I think the people in this country have had enough of experts, with organizations from acronyms, saying—
Interviewer: They've had enough of experts? The people have had enough of experts? What do you mean by that?
Gove: People from organizations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Inteviewer: The people of this country have had enough of experts?
Gove: Because these people are the same ones who got consistently wrong what was happening.
Interviewer: This is proper Trump politics this, isn't it?
Gove: No it's actually a faith in the—
Inteviewer: It's Oxbridge Trump.
Gove: It's a faith, Faisal, in the British people to make the right decision.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Presume we need a full investigation into this? Can't have any doubts about foreign interference into our elections can we?

 

 

Neither the UK nor the US seem to be denying the authenticity of the documents, which relate to US negotiating demands in trade talks, not the UK side.

 

If they're authentic, they cannot be "disinformation", only information inconveniently entering the public arena. They could be a leak or hack, presumably on the US side. 

 

It would clarify matters if Labour revealed the source of the documents - but there could be multiple reasons why they cannot do that (at least some of them honourable!).

 

President Trump is in town and doing a press conference tomorrow, isn't he? The obvious thing would be for the media to quiz him about the source, authenticity and contents of the documents....and follow up by asking what the US would want out of such negotiations, under his America First policy.

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

He certainly referred to "experts" (by implication all of them) "saying they know what is best" (most experts deal in forecasts & consequences, not policy recommendations) and "getting it consistently wrong".

He didn't refer to any experts ever getting anything right. He goes on to express "faith in the British people" ignoring experts as a general class of people, not particular experts who've got it wrong.

 

Anyway, people can make up their own minds: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

 

Gove: I think the people in this country have had enough of experts, with organizations from acronyms, saying—
Interviewer: They've had enough of experts? The people have had enough of experts? What do you mean by that?
Gove: People from organizations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Inteviewer: The people of this country have had enough of experts?
Gove: Because these people are the same ones who got consistently wrong what was happening.
Interviewer: This is proper Trump politics this, isn't it?
Gove: No it's actually a faith in the—
Inteviewer: It's Oxbridge Trump.
Gove: It's a faith, Faisal, in the British people to make the right decision.

Think this is clear to be honest. He's right as well - people have had enough of experts saying they know best and getting it wrong.

 

People arent stopping going to the doctors, or listening to nurses etc because they mainly get it right.

 

But when you look at the Brexit vote and the amount of people voting for Corbynomics - it's clear they just aren't interested in listening to groups like the IFS or the CBI anymore. They have had enough of their failed predictions and are pretty much now ignoring it.

 

Gove: I think the people in this country have had enough of experts, with organizations from acronyms, saying—
Interviewer: They've had enough of experts? The people have had enough of experts? What do you mean by that?
Gove: People from organizations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.

Edited 3 December 2019 by MattP

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Neither the UK nor the US seem to be denying the authenticity of the documents, which relate to US negotiating demands in trade talks, not the UK side.

 

If they're authentic, they cannot be "disinformation", only information inconveniently entering the public arena. They could be a leak or hack, presumably on the US side. 

 

It would clarify matters if Labour revealed the source of the documents - but there could be multiple reasons why they cannot do that (at least some of them honourable!).

 

President Trump is in town and doing a press conference tomorrow, isn't he? The obvious thing would be for the media to quiz him about the source, authenticity and contents of the documents....and follow up by asking what the US would want out of such negotiations, under his America First policy.

That would be interesting to see - I doubt much would come out of it other than an evasive answer and a later petulant Twitter rant about the journo in question though.

 

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Think this is clear to be honest. He's right as well - people have had enough of experts saying they know best and getting it wrong.

 

People stopping going to the doctors, or listening to nurses etc because they mainly get it right.

 

But when you look at the Brexit vote and the amount of people voting for Corbynomics - it's clear they just aren't interested in listening to groups like the IFS or the CBI anymore. They have had enough of their failed predictions and are pretty much now ignoring it.

 

Gove: I think the people in this country have had enough of experts, with organizations from acronyms, saying—
Interviewer: They've had enough of experts? The people have had enough of experts? What do you mean by that?
Gove: People from organizations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.

 

 

The problem is that it's not only economic "experts" that are not being listened to - the distrust has taken on a life of its own, and extends rather further than that as various stories and policy decisions based on public opinion attest.

[Guest MattP]

31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Neither the UK nor the US seem to be denying the authenticity of the documents, which relate to US negotiating demands in trade talks, not the UK side.

 

If they're authentic, they cannot be "disinformation", only information inconveniently entering the public arena. They could be a leak or hack, presumably on the US side. 

 

It would clarify matters if Labour revealed the source of the documents - but there could be multiple reasons why they cannot do that (at least some of them honourable!).

 

President Trump is in town and doing a press conference tomorrow, isn't he? The obvious thing would be for the media to quiz him about the source, authenticity and contents of the documents....and follow up by asking what the US would want out of such negotiations, under his America First policy.

Will this stop the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" rhetoric? I very much doubt it.

 

Both campaigns in this election are being ran on complete fantasy and a pack of lies - very depressing.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Will this stop the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" rhetoric? I very much doubt it.

Both campaigns in this election are being ran on complete fantasy and a pack of lies - very depressing.

 

I tend to agree with your second comment - and I'm sure that the broad-brush rhetoric will continue on all sides.

Because most voters don't have a detailed knowledge of the issues and politicians are after votes.

 

Of course, nobody is going to sell the NHS as a package to US business.

IF elements of the NHS are sold, such sales would doubtless be partial, gradual and possibly with little publicity - though that could still greatly undermine the NHS as we know it.

 

That's not inevitable, even under a Tory government ideologically wedded to privatisation. It probably is inevitable, despite what Trump says, that the US will seek to make inroads into the NHS for its corporations.

That's what the leaked documents suggest. That doesn't mean that the UK has to accept US demands.....

But what is inevitable is that, if the UK wants a much closer trading relationship with the US, is that we'll have to make major concessions. If not on US corporate access to the healthcare sector, then it will be in other sectors, perhaps food & drink.

Because the USA is a much bigger, more economically powerful country than the UK. Similar dilemmas will doubtless arise when we try to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal. 

[RobHawk]

49 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I tend to agree with your second comment - and I'm sure that the broad-brush rhetoric will continue on all sides.

Because most voters don't have a detailed knowledge of the issues and politicians are after votes.

 

Of course, nobody is going to sell the NHS as a package to US business.

IF elements of the NHS are sold, such sales would doubtless be partial, gradual and possibly with little publicity - though that could still greatly undermine the NHS as we know it.

 

That's not inevitable, even under a Tory government ideologically wedded to privatisation. It probably is inevitable, despite what Trump says, that the US will seek to make inroads into the NHS for its corporations.

That's what the leaked documents suggest. That doesn't mean that the UK has to accept US demands.....

But what is inevitable is that, if the UK wants a much closer trading relationship with the US, is that we'll have to make major concessions. If not on US corporate access to the healthcare sector, then it will be in other sectors, perhaps food & drink.

Because the USA is a much bigger, more economically powerful country than the UK. Similar dilemmas will doubtless arise when we try to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal. 

Let's be honest, this is already happening in the NHS, just not to US companies.

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

57 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I tend to agree with your second comment - and I'm sure that the broad-brush rhetoric will continue on all sides.

Because most voters don't have a detailed knowledge of the issues and politicians are after votes.

 

Of course, nobody is going to sell the NHS as a package to US business.

IF elements of the NHS are sold, such sales would doubtless be partial, gradual and possibly with little publicity - though that could still greatly undermine the NHS as we know it.

 

That's not inevitable, even under a Tory government ideologically wedded to privatisation. It probably is inevitable, despite what Trump says, that the US will seek to make inroads into the NHS for its corporations.

That's what the leaked documents suggest. That doesn't mean that the UK has to accept US demands.....

But what is inevitable is that, if the UK wants a much closer trading relationship with the US, is that we'll have to make major concessions. If not on US corporate access to the healthcare sector, then it will be in other sectors, perhaps food & drink.

Because the USA is a much bigger, more economically powerful country than the UK. Similar dilemmas will doubtless arise when we try to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal. 

It is a rather  depressing campaign that is for sure.  Twats everywhere.

 

Perhaps you can explain though how using private provision actually damages the NHS?

Do we include facilities management?  Building?  The idea that the NHS is only the state has always been nonsense.

Edited 3 December 2019 by Jon the Hat

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

It is a rather  depressing campaign that is for sure.  Twats everywhere.

 

Perhaps you can explain though how using private provision actually damages the NHS?

Do we include facilities management?  Building?  The idea that the NHS is only the state has always been nonsense.

 

Well according to Jess Phillips it's an abomination for anybody to profit from healthcare provision even if it means you getting treated. It won't be long until we get to the stage of them explicitly stating death > private provision of health services. 

 

When I go into Waitrose later, I'm gonna look at the staff in the most scornful manner for profiting from my hunger. 

[Dr The Singh]

I think we should however sell the BBC Asian Network to Trump, that's a service we all could do without

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Will this stop the "Boris is going to sell the NHS to Trump" rhetoric? I very much doubt it.

And we have the answer.

 

There really does need to an inquiry into the campaigning in our politics after this election.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

Well according to Jess Phillips it's an abomination for anybody to profit from healthcare provision even if it means you getting treated. It won't be long until we get to the stage of them explicitly stating death > private provision of health services. 

When I go into Waitrose later, I'm gonna look at the staff in the most scornful manner for profiting from my hunger. 

How dare pharma companies make a return on their development of life savings medicines, or Medical tech companies on their incredible advances in equipment.  I'm less clear on how one incetivises people to invest their capital in developing anything at all.  Oh hang on, they aren't supposed to have captial are they.  Even our pension funds probably.  

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

And we have the answer.

 

There really does need to an inquiry into the campaigning in our politics after this election.

The NHS is a lot smaller than I had imagined.

[Strokes]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

And we have the answer.

 

There really does need to an inquiry into the campaigning in our politics after this election.

Also that quote makes no sense ‘Jo Donald. Love Bous. Did Dianne Abbot write it?

[RoboFox]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The NHS is a lot smaller than I had imagined.

Jeremy Hunt gave most of it away already.