General Election - December 12th, 2019

[Blue Hefner]

Re the broadband - I haven’t read their policy but surely it isn’t to nationalise every broadband provider?

The sensible option would to have a national provider which lays cables, provides services etc to the areas of the country where it isn’t viable for a private company to do so I.e out in the sticks, far reaches of Scotland etc

 

[mcfc1632]

This provides some confidence after the shock of the Labour manifesto

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...92096.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed

 

[lancs blue]

This provides some confidence after the shock of the Labour manifesto

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...92096.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed

All based on analysis of opinion poll data so equally (un)reliable.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Re the broadband - I haven’t read their policy but surely it isn’t to nationalise every broadband provider?

The sensible option would to have a national provider which lays cables, provides services etc to the areas of the country where it isn’t viable for a private company to do so I.e out in the sticks, far reaches of Scotland etc

No its to nationalise Openreach who (with the exception of Virgin) are the infrastructure provider for all of the other companies anyway . The Conservative Party own research shows that doing this is £12billion cheaper than the current option.

 

[blueparrot]

Re the broadband - I haven’t read their policy but surely it isn’t to nationalise every broadband provider?

The sensible option would to have a national provider which lays cables, provides services etc to the areas of the country where it isn’t viable for a private company to do so I.e out in the sticks, far reaches of Scotland etc

I haven't looked that much into it as it's highly unlikely to happen, best Labour can hope for is coalition. However I thought the policy was as you suggest to take the BT monopoly of openreach for the network that Sky etc have to pay for into public ownership.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's being done for the benefit of 95% or so we keep getting told.

How exactly is it benefitting us?

It isn't is the truth, it's just means further bills down the line as we have to pay the debt off as a country as well as our fucking bills.

It's either undeliverable or would involve FAR greater tax rises, hitting virtually everyone. Of course Labour cannot admit to this so they've chosen to just lie instead.

Moreover, the base rate is 0.75% at the moment. Government borrowing on anything like the proposed scale would necessarily mean interest rates going up. The base rate could *easily* double or treble. (For reference, base rates in 2007 under Gordon Brown were over 5%.) Especially when the pound collapsed, which it would. McDonnell even admitted that in 2017.

Just a 1% rise would mean anyone with a £200k mortgage is £167 a month worse off. But not only mortgages, rents would go up as well, and if the government tried to prevent rent rises, the landlords would pull out of the rental market.

And it would actually be worse still. Increased government debt interest would mean less money to balance the books and more tax rises as well.

And if rates went up more than say 1% it would be a catastrophe with hundreds of thousands or even millions of people unable to afford their mortgage payments and risking losing their homes.

The Labour manifesto is an act of vandalism on the UK economy and British public, with John McDonnell and his stated objective of smashing the capitalist system behind it.

 

[bugsyblue]

There aren't though really, Libs if you believe Brexit will be stopped, but it won't because they won't get in,
Greens if you fancy seeing your hard earned blown on £100billion of initiatives that achieve Jack shit in reality, UKIP,
and you'll be voting for them with half a dozen other people, then the usual ragbag of assorted friutcakes even madder than
the one's above.

Green’s have some great initiatives, I would be happy for my hard earned to invested in. UKIP are a bunch of pricks, of course they are out... Lib Dem’s possibly but weak leadership like the rest.

Agree there’s not the most exciting choice but people need to stop thinking “oh they won’t get in so I don’t bother voting for them” otherwise nothing will ever change

 

[Blue Hefner]

I had a thought overnight - I think Johnson could have a problem by trying to make this election all about Brexit. During the Brexit campaign there was optimism, less foreigners, higher wages, same trade deals and more as before, no down side etc. Take your pick

Now those that still believe that aren’t hearing the optimism anymore, all they are hearing is about getting it ‘done’ and even the most optimistic person surely knows it’s not as simple as that

So, as a result they are looking for other policies which could provide optimism. Not many are coming from the Tory side, particularly for the poor/working classes in the North.

He’s bet the house on Brexit still being the main issue. But if it’s not, the Tories could be in for a surprise

 

[Blue Hefner]

Green’s have some great initiatives, I would be happy for my hard earned to invested in. UKIP are a bunch of pricks, of course they are out... Lib Dem’s possibly but weak leadership like the rest.

Agree there’s not the most exciting choice but people need to stop thinking “oh they won’t get in so I don’t bother voting for them” otherwise nothing will ever change

UKIP didn’t get in but managed to change the face and direction on U.K. politics. Maybe the Greens could do the same

 

[Chippy_boy]

I had a thought overnight - I think Johnson could have a problem by trying to make this election all about Brexit. During the Brexit campaign there was optimism, less foreigners, higher wages, same trade deals and more as before, no down side etc. Take your pick

Now those that still believe that aren’t hearing the optimism anymore, all they are hearing is about getting it ‘done’ and even the most optimistic person surely knows it’s not as simple as that

So, as a result they are looking for other policies which could provide optimism. Not many are coming from the Tory side, particularly for the poor/working classes in the North.

He’s bet the house on Brexit still being the main issue. But if it’s not, the Tories could be in for a surprise

I agree. How much of a surprise is open to debate though. But why risk it? I've always said the problems in the last campaign was a failure to provide potential voters with a vision of hope and aspiration, and still I am seeing none of that. Let's hope we see some imminently.

Also, does the man in the street know, I wonder, that McDonnell is a Marxist who openly called for rioting in the streets? That he wants to smash the capitalist system and bring about systemic change by whatever means? Do they understand that a destroyed economy and mass riots would entirely suit his purposes, and might even be behind the ridiculously unworkable policies? People need to know this.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Agree there’s not the most exciting choice but people need to stop thinking “oh they won’t get in so I don’t bother voting for them” otherwise nothing will ever change

I agree with the sentiment, but reality is different, we've not had a Liberal govt for around 100 years, Greens never,
and never will, the only glimpse of power is a minor coalition, no chance of majorities.

 

[George Hannah]

November 22 2019, 12:01am, The Times
John Curtice: Labour trails in polls despite the popularity of Corbyn’s policies

John Curtice

Labour has made some progress in the polls. Immediately before the election was called, the party stood on average at just 24 per cent of polling. Now the figure is 29 per cent.

The trouble is, the Conservatives have advanced by just as much, and so Jeremy Corbyn still finds his party trailing Boris Johnson’s by a dozen or so points.

So far Labour has concentrated its campaign on domestic policy rather than on the issue that precipitated the election, Brexit. The party hopes to focus voters’ attention away from an issue over which it has agonised during the past two years, and thereby win back some of the many Leave voters who have defected.

However, it has not had much success. At 14 per cent, the party’s average vote among those who voted Leave is only two points up on where it was immediately before the election. In contrast the party’s vote has increased by seven points (to 43 per cent) among those who voted Remain, a gain largely secured at the expense of the Lib Dems.

So, why is Labour’s approach not working? One possibility is that its policy programme is too extreme for many voters.
Yet of this there is little sign.

Consider, for example, its totemic proposals to nationalise a number of industries, including those utilities whose privatisation in the 1980s represented a high water mark of Thatcherism. YouGov has reported that 45 per cent of voters are in favour of the nationalisation of the gas and electricity companies, and only 29 per cent opposed. As many as 50 per cent say they support the nationalisation of the water companies while 25 per cent are against. Similarly, ComRes has found that as many as 51 per cent are in favour of the nationalisation of energy and water, together with the Royal Mail and the part of BT that is responsible for the country’s broadband network. Only 22 per cent were opposed.

Nationalising the rail network appears to be even more popular. YouGov says 56 per cent are in favour and only 22 per cent opposed. ComRes put the figures at 54 per cent and 19 per cent respectively.

Labour’s plans to change the governance of private companies seem to be relatively popular too. For example, YouGov reports that 54 per cent are in favour of putting employees in a third of the corporate board seats (only 21 per cent are opposed), while ComRes finds that 48 per cent believe that larger companies should be forced to hand over 10 per cent of their shares to workers, a proposition to which only 19 per cent are opposed.

Much critical commentary was stimulated by a motion passed by Labour’s conference in the autumn that called for the integration of public schools into the state sector. That has been watered down in the party manifesto to the possible elimination of the tax advantages that they enjoy by being able to claim charitable status. According to ComRes, removing that status is supported by 46 per cent and opposed by 17 per cent.

Why then is the party struggling in the polls? The answer appears to lie in perceptions of its competence, a problem fuelled in part by doubts over Mr Corbyn’s ability to be an effective prime minister.

Nowhere is this more apparent than on the issue of the health service. When Opinium asked voters which party they trusted most on health, Labour (on 29 per cent) enjoyed only a narrow lead over the Conservatives (23 per cent). This lead disappeared when voters were asked which leader would be best for the NHS. According to YouGov the proportion who trusted Jeremy Corbyn more on health (27 per cent) was no more than the proportion who trusted Boris Johnson more (27 per cent).

Labour’s principal task in the next three weeks is not to convince voters of the merits of its policy ideas. Rather, it has to persuade them that it is actually capable of implementing them.

GENERAL ELECTION 2019
How the UK plans to vote Each circle represents a different poll. Lines show a fortnightly average
​

Sir John Curtice is professor of politics at Strathclyde University, a consultant at NatCen Social Research and a senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe

 

[M18CTID]

Not sure if it's been covered already but is there any reason why the 45% tax threshold in Labour's manifesto has been set at £80,000? What do MPs earn?

 

[mexico1970]

Not sure if it's been covered already but is there any reason why the 45% tax threshold in Labour's manifesto has been set at £80,000? What do MPs earn?

That'll be £77,379 , if nothing else proves how self serving they all are it's this figure ;)

 

[blueparrot]

Not sure if it's been covered already but is there any reason why the 45% tax threshold in Labour's manifesto has been set at £80,000? What do MPs earn?

The vast majority far more than that.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That'll be £77,379 , if nothing else proves how self serving they all are it's this figure ;)

£79k actually, and it does nothing of the kind.

 

[mexico1970]

£79k actually, and it does nothing of the kind.

The figure you quoted makes it look even more suspect, and it does make it look like they are self serving.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The figure you quoted makes it look even more suspect, and it does make it look like they are self serving.

"look" being the operative word.
There is no correlation there that withstands any scrutiny - MP pay will exceed 80k next year, some position holders (whip, minister) get extra, many are paid outside Parliament. All of those will make an MP immediately exceed £80k.

It's the top 5% - that it corresponds is a coincidence not a plot.

Claiming it's deliberate is as valid as "That bloke's wearing a red shirt, must be a Utd fan"

 

[mexico1970]

"look" being the operative word.
There is no correlation there that withstands any scrutiny - MP pay will exceed 80k next year, some position holders (whip, minister) get extra, many are paid outside Parliament. All of those will make an MP immediately exceed £80k.

It's the top 5% - that it corresponds is a coincidence not a plot.

Claiming it's deliberate is as valid as "That bloke's wearing a red shirt, must be a Utd fan"

I don't own a red item of clothing, not even a sock, coincidence ?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't own a red item of clothing, not even a sock, coincidence ?

not necessarily, but it could be.

That bloke in red might be an Arsenal fan, or Middlesbrough.

Taking a specific conclusion and inventing a theory that gets to that conclusion does not mean the theory is valid.