Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Election Battlegrounds: Guzzledown

1235

Comments

  • kle4 said:

    How are polling trends looking compared to 2017 now? I'm sure about 19 of our lefty friends were posting the chart daily at the start of this week....

    Courtesy of RobD

    https://imgur.com/HISAOZH
    Speaking of porn... :lol:
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,403
    AndyJS said:
    What do you have to do to get a dukedom around here these days?
  • Bar chart shark jumped. Raise your game LDs, raise your game.

    https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1195421348383854592?s=20
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    Speaking of "The Battle for Spain", Beevor suggests that far from the Right winning the Spanish Civil War, it was actually lost by the Left.

    Those two outcomes do not seem mutually exclusive.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,821
    edited November 2019
    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Isn't this their wheeze with all these nationalizations.

    They are going to set the price (obviously below the real value), and of course then put all the private sector players out of business and take their IP / infrastructure for pennies on the pound.

    Its like the shadow chancellor is a Marxist or something, wanting to seize the means of production.

    Lets not forget, its not just nationalization of things like the rail, they are also proposing to basically ignore international IP law and start manufacturing knock-off medicines.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    MJW said:

    I suggest those claiming Labour's broadband wheeze is a good idea read this thread.

    https://twitter.com/cousinsdan/status/1195335657213898755

    He doesn't even mention the hole in the pension fund, potential legal challenges from foreign shareholders (Deutsche Telekom owns about 12 per cent of BT). What happens to those put out of business. Admirable aim - and there's probably a way to do it - but it certainly isn't this way, which looks like it was worked out on the back of a fag packet.

    A Government can just cause investors to sell up and they take it into national ownership at rock bottom price. I think people confuse market worth with compulsory purchase at their peril. It is of course the kind of policy we have not seen for a long time.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    HYUFD said:

    I think this is Interesting! I would not Canvass or deliver leaflets if I was paid:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/15/election-candidates-told-not-go-canvassing-alone-think-carefully/

    Well I often do it alone unpaid
    More efficient as a team, but happy to go and do an area solo. Never paid. Bacon butties were on offer the other day for dawn raiders/tellers, but my relief never arrived, so they had gone when I did finally get away.

    I have had verbal abuse, but never any threat of anything physical. Apart from dogs, lurking behind the letterbox in a silent vigil for fingers....
    Do you eat bacon? I had assumed given your low cholesterol you did not eat meat? I wish I had low cholesterol!

    I have been verbally abused in the past. I have even put a leaflet in a letter box and felt a hand put the leaflet back in mine and push my hand back out! :lol:
    1.8 - lowest in the Totnes surgery.

    That is probably because my efforts to eat bacon sarnies keep getting thwarted!
    Keep up the 1.8! :smile:
  • Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    MJW said:

    I suggest those claiming Labour's broadband wheeze is a good idea read this thread.

    https://twitter.com/cousinsdan/status/1195335657213898755

    He doesn't even mention the hole in the pension fund, potential legal challenges from foreign shareholders (Deutsche Telekom owns about 12 per cent of BT). What happens to those put out of business. Admirable aim - and there's probably a way to do it - but it certainly isn't this way, which looks like it was worked out on the back of a fag packet.

    It will be massively more expensive than Labour has admitted. Possibly by an order of magnitude.
    Exactly
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122
    MaxPB said:

    I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.

    Investing in broadband infrastructure is a good idea.

    The problem with Labour’s policy is not that. It is the removal of choice by effectively creating one state monopoly for the internet. And the risk is that having started with fixed line infrastructure, the next thing in their sights or as a result of the private telecoms market collapsing, will be mobiles.

    The young, in particular, are used to choice - or providers, packages, phones, upgrades, TV packages, gaming, streaming etc. Labour’s proposal puts this at risk. That’s what the Tories, had they any sense, should focus on - the loss of choice for the young in this area with the possibility that this could extend to all sorts of other areas in the digital world, which the young take for granted. It was the one thing my son picked up on this afternoon - that while it might be free it would probably also be “shit”.

    The irony of the Tories doing this, of course, is that Brexit removes choices from the young.

    Then they can have more targeted arguments about what this will do to the tech sector, to service levels if have a “one size fits all” policy, to pensions etc and on cost.

    But it is the loss of choice which is the killer for me.

    The Tories really should have their own offering on broadband but maintaining choice and contrast it with Labour removing it.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    viewcode said:

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    Is he any good? I've been avoiding Beevor (I'm not a fan of his style and Max Hastings is still churning them out) but I'm beginning to think that whilst Hastings is his superior for wars, Beevor might edge it for battles.
    I think he's good, although I've never read Hastings save for brief browses in Waterstones or Smiths.

    Max Hastings is mentioned on the back cover of Beevor's "The Battle of Spain":

    "Fascination lies in the human drama, superbly captured by Beevor… a vivid chronicle of a dreadful time and place." - Max Hastings, Sunday Times.

    Do you read James Holland?
    I enjoyed his "Together We Stand" about North Africa.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242

    Bar chart shark jumped. Raise your game LDs, raise your game.

    https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1195421348383854592?s=20

    That is a startler. Takes some real lack of principles to pass that one off, it's not even charmingly dodgy.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    HYUFD said:

    I think this is Interesting! I would not Canvass or deliver leaflets if I was paid:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/15/election-candidates-told-not-go-canvassing-alone-think-carefully/

    Well I often do it alone unpaid
    Are we talking about nationalised porn now or canvassing?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    HYUFD said:

    I think this is Interesting! I would not Canvass or deliver leaflets if I was paid:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/15/election-candidates-told-not-go-canvassing-alone-think-carefully/

    Well I often do it alone unpaid
    More efficient as a team, but happy to go and do an area solo. Never paid. Bacon butties were on offer the other day for dawn raiders/tellers, but my relief never arrived, so they had gone when I did finally get away.

    I have had verbal abuse, but never any threat of anything physical. Apart from dogs, lurking behind the letterbox in a silent vigil for fingers....
    Do you eat bacon? I had assumed given your low cholesterol you did not eat meat? I wish I had low cholesterol!

    I have been verbally abused in the past. I have even put a leaflet in a letter box and felt a hand put the leaflet back in mine and push my hand back out! :lol:
    The dangers of high cholesterol have been grossly and cynically exaggerated by the pharmaceutical industry in my opinion.
    Bollocks

    It was Pfizer wot done it
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,938

    Bar chart shark jumped. Raise your game LDs, raise your game.

    https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1195421348383854592?s=20

    Labour should do that in the SW London seats. Only Labour can defeat the Tories in Richmond! (They have used the GB wide vote shares in 2017!)
  • Floater said:

    viewcode said:

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    Is he any good? I've been avoiding Beevor (I'm not a fan of his style and Max Hastings is still churning them out) but I'm beginning to think that whilst Hastings is his superior for wars, Beevor might edge it for battles.
    I think he's good, although I've never read Hastings save for brief browses in Waterstones or Smiths.

    Max Hastings is mentioned on the back cover of Beevor's "The Battle of Spain":

    "Fascination lies in the human drama, superbly captured by Beevor… a vivid chronicle of a dreadful time and place." - Max Hastings, Sunday Times.

    I have read both.

    They are both good and produce some very interesting reads.

    Viewcode - a number of his books are available to listen to on Youtube.
    Oops, forgot to mention some five or six years ago I bought Beevor's "The Second World War" - very thick book :)
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Bar chart shark jumped. Raise your game LDs, raise your game.

    https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1195421348383854592?s=20

    Makes the Lib Dems seem ok lol
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.

    Investing in broadband infrastructure is a good idea.

    The problem with Labour’s policy is not that. It is the removal of choice by effectively creating one state monopoly for the internet. And the risk is that having started with fixed line infrastructure, the next thing in their sights or as a result of the private telecoms market collapsing, will be mobiles.

    The young, in particular, are used to choice - or providers, packages, phones, upgrades, TV packages, gaming, streaming etc. Labour’s proposal puts this at risk. That’s what the Tories, had they any sense, should focus on - the loss of choice for the young in this area with the possibility that this could extend to all sorts of other areas in the digital world, which the young take for granted. It was the one thing my son picked up on this afternoon - that while it might be free it would probably also be “shit”.

    The irony of the Tories doing this, of course, is that Brexit removes choices from the young.

    Then they can have more targeted arguments about what this will do to the tech sector, to service levels if have a “one size fits all” policy, to pensions etc and on cost.

    But it is the loss of choice which is the killer for me.

    The Tories really should have their own offering on broadband but maintaining choice and contrast it with Labour removing it.
    The Tories do have their own offer on broadband but it is not "free"!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,821
    edited November 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.

    Investing in broadband infrastructure is a good idea.

    The problem with Labour’s policy is not that. It is the removal of choice by effectively creating one state monopoly for the internet. And the risk is that having started with fixed line infrastructure, the next thing in their sights or as a result of the private telecoms market collapsing, will be mobiles.

    The young, in particular, are used to choice - or providers, packages, phones, upgrades, TV packages, gaming, streaming etc. Labour’s proposal puts this at risk. That’s what the Tories, had they any sense, should focus on - the loss of choice for the young in this area with the possibility that this could extend to all sorts of other areas in the digital world, which the young take for granted. It was the one thing my son picked up on this afternoon - that while it might be free it would probably also be “shit”.

    The irony of the Tories doing this, of course, is that Brexit removes choices from the young.

    Then they can have more targeted arguments about what this will do to the tech sector, to service levels if have a “one size fits all” policy, to pensions etc and on cost.

    But it is the loss of choice which is the killer for me.

    The Tories really should have their own offering on broadband but maintaining choice and contrast it with Labour removing it.
    It is why none of the countries with the best internet do this. They were much better at planning and investing in the infrastructure, but they also use a market based economy for the provision.

    Internet is not like say water or electricity. Every consumer has basically the same "pipes". All consumers get 240v connection and thats fine.

    Internet doesn't work like that. Some people just do their emails, watch a bit of Netflix and don't need anything crazy, some play online games where they want lower latency, some people stream themselves playing and need a bigger upload pipe, etc etc etc. There isn't one internet connection that is ideal for all.
  • viewcode said:

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    Is he any good? I've been avoiding Beevor (I'm not a fan of his style and Max Hastings is still churning them out) but I'm beginning to think that whilst Hastings is his superior for wars, Beevor might edge it for battles.
    I think he's good, although I've never read Hastings save for brief browses in Waterstones or Smiths.

    Max Hastings is mentioned on the back cover of Beevor's "The Battle of Spain":

    "Fascination lies in the human drama, superbly captured by Beevor… a vivid chronicle of a dreadful time and place." - Max Hastings, Sunday Times.

    Do you read James Holland?
    I enjoyed his "Together We Stand" about North Africa.
    Again, no I haven't but I have seen he's written loads of books!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
    That’s what was so clever about my pension idea
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    I've taken to rereading Stalingrad every other Christmas. The snow makes it feel seasonal.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.

    Investing in broadband infrastructure is a good idea.

    The problem with Labour’s policy is not that. It is the removal of choice by effectively creating one state monopoly for the internet. And the risk is that having started with fixed line infrastructure, the next thing in their sights or as a result of the private telecoms market collapsing, will be mobiles.

    The young, in particular, are used to choice - or providers, packages, phones, upgrades, TV packages, gaming, streaming etc. Labour’s proposal puts this at risk. That’s what the Tories, had they any sense, should focus on - the loss of choice for the young in this area with the possibility that this could extend to all sorts of other areas in the digital world, which the young take for granted. It was the one thing my son picked up on this afternoon - that while it might be free it would probably also be “shit”.

    The irony of the Tories doing this, of course, is that Brexit removes choices from the young.

    Then they can have more targeted arguments about what this will do to the tech sector, to service levels if have a “one size fits all” policy, to pensions etc and on cost.

    But it is the loss of choice which is the killer for me.

    The Tories really should have their own offering on broadband but maintaining choice and contrast it with Labour removing it.
    The Tories do have their own offer on broadband but it is not "free"!
    Neither is Labours.

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    nunu2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think this is Interesting! I would not Canvass or deliver leaflets if I was paid:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/15/election-candidates-told-not-go-canvassing-alone-think-carefully/

    Well I often do it alone unpaid
    Are we talking about nationalised porn now or canvassing?
    lol = :smiley:
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Well of course they're nervous. The threat of a Labour administration is mortal. The Labour Left is from the 'all property is theft' tradition. They don't respect the right to private property, because they believe that everything should be state-controlled.

    When the manifesto appears it will be interesting to see the small print on all these plans. One suggestion I have heard mooted is that shareholders in businesses to be nationalised will simply have all their shares confiscated, and be paid back in Government-issued bonds that will, if they ever mature, pay out at a fraction of the market value of the original assets (the return to be set by Parliament at an arbitrary, low value of convenience to the Treasury.)

    Journalists reporting on the likely costs of Labour's nationalisations are quite simply failing to take the threat of expropriation seriously. Stuff is a whole lot easier to afford if you simply nick it, and the Labour high command are noted fans of revolutionary socialist Latin American despotisms in which this sort of thing is considered par for the course. There is no reason to suppose that they wouldn't try it here if given the chance.

    It would make it a whole lot easier for the Government to enact its programme at first, but undermining the property rights of the population does rather tend to result in total economic and social collapse in the medium term. People who are terrified of Corbyn (and, more critically, McDonnell) in power keep banging on about Venezuela for a reason. Being a cold, wet, Northerly version of that pitifully poor country is not the situation in which we desire to find ourselves.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    I've taken to rereading Stalingrad every other Christmas. The snow makes it feel seasonal.
    The Russians win...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,938

    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Well of course they're nervous. The threat of a Labour administration is mortal. The Labour Left is from the 'all property is theft' tradition. They don't respect the right to private property, because they believe that everything should be state-controlled.

    When the manifesto appears it will be interesting to see the small print on all these plans. One suggestion I have heard mooted is that shareholders in businesses to be nationalised will simply have all their shares confiscated, and be paid back in Government-issued bonds that will, if they ever mature, pay out at a fraction of the market value of the original assets (the return to be set by Parliament at an arbitrary, low value of convenience to the Treasury.)

    Journalists reporting on the likely costs of Labour's nationalisations are quite simply failing to take the threat of expropriation seriously. Stuff is a whole lot easier to afford if you simply nick it, and the Labour high command are noted fans of revolutionary socialist Latin American despotisms in which this sort of thing is considered par for the course. There is no reason to suppose that they wouldn't try it here if given the chance.

    It would make it a whole lot easier for the Government to enact its programme at first, but undermining the property rights of the population does rather tend to result in total economic and social collapse in the medium term. People who are terrified of Corbyn (and, more critically, McDonnell) in power keep banging on about Venezuela for a reason. Being a cold, wet, Northerly version of that pitifully poor country is not the situation in which we desire to find ourselves.
    People will not be given cash reparations. McDonnell will hand out Labour Party merchandising vouchers instead.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    viewcode said:

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    Is he any good? I've been avoiding Beevor (I'm not a fan of his style and Max Hastings is still churning them out) but I'm beginning to think that whilst Hastings is his superior for wars, Beevor might edge it for battles.
    I think he's good, although I've never read Hastings save for brief browses in Waterstones or Smiths.

    Max Hastings is mentioned on the back cover of Beevor's "The Battle of Spain":

    "Fascination lies in the human drama, superbly captured by Beevor… a vivid chronicle of a dreadful time and place." - Max Hastings, Sunday Times.

    Do you read James Holland?
    I enjoyed his "Together We Stand" about North Africa.
    Again, no I haven't but I have seen he's written loads of books!
    I enjoy his works too.

    Big Week and Burma 44 I have read recently and recommend them both.

  • Charles said:

    TBH, if we’re going back to the 40’s it was the Commies who helped us win the war against the anti-democratic Fascists, who wanted a docile majority to get ‘XXXX’ done!
    When I were a lad, as the saying goes, the Commies were still our allies.

    Reading Beevor’s ‘Berlin’ about the last days of the European War I got the distinct impression that the Soviets did not hold us in anything like the same regard at the time, and the idea that Stalin did not want a docile population...
    I read "Berlin" early last year - after reading Beevor's "Stalingrad", then I read his "Ardennes 1944", and this year I've read "D-day", "Arnhem", "Crete", "Paris" and now I've just started "The Battle for Spain".

    You could say I've come down with a clear-cut case of Beevor Fever :lol:
    I've taken to rereading Stalingrad every other Christmas. The snow makes it feel seasonal.
    The Russians win...
    Wasn't more the Right lost?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,984

    kle4 said:

    How are polling trends looking compared to 2017 now? I'm sure about 19 of our lefty friends were posting the chart daily at the start of this week....

    Courtesy of RobD

    https://imgur.com/HISAOZH
    Couple of the most recent blue dots are well above the Conservative trend line.....
    Trend line is a simple average of the polls within ±3.5 days (so a window of a week).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,938
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    How are polling trends looking compared to 2017 now? I'm sure about 19 of our lefty friends were posting the chart daily at the start of this week....

    Courtesy of RobD

    https://imgur.com/HISAOZH
    Couple of the most recent blue dots are well above the Conservative trend line.....
    Trend line is a simple average of the polls within ±3.5 days (so a window of a week).
    Hoping to see a sharp advance upwards!
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited November 2019

    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think this is Interesting! I would not Canvass or deliver leaflets if I was paid:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/15/election-candidates-told-not-go-canvassing-alone-think-carefully/

    Well I often do it alone unpaid
    More efficient as a team, but happy to go and do an area solo. Never paid. Bacon butties were on offer the other day for dawn raiders/tellers, but my relief never arrived, so they had gone when I did finally get away.

    I have had verbal abuse, but never any threat of anything physical. Apart from dogs, lurking behind the letterbox in a silent vigil for fingers....
    Do you eat bacon? I had assumed given your low cholesterol you did not eat meat? I wish I had low cholesterol!

    I have been verbally abused in the past. I have even put a leaflet in a letter box and felt a hand put the leaflet back in mine and push my hand back out! :lol:
    The dangers of high cholesterol have been grossly and cynically exaggerated by the pharmaceutical industry in my opinion.
    Bollocks

    It was Pfizer wot done it
    It is not bollocks. Cholesterol is the body's repair mechanism for damaged and weak blood vessels. So it is hardly surprising that elevated levels are found in those with heart issues is it? And logic would suggest that aggressively attacking cholesterol levels is like arresting firemen to try and stop housefires. Or kicking peoples' walking sticks away to help them walk. Dangerous and deeply stupid.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Barnesian said:

    maaarsh said:

    Barnesian said:

    PaulM said:

    Barnesian said:

    maaarsh said:

    Barnesian said:

    maaarsh said:

    Barnesian said:

    Putting the
    Seats
    Con 319 (NC)
    Lab 224 (NC)
    LD 34 (NC)

    Statis. Tories don't seem to be benefiting from drop in BXP vote.

    Not to mention the analysis on the impact of the BP withdrawl - the only way you make it a draw is to include loads of polls from before it happened.
    The BXP withdrawal from Tory seats does not affect Labour seats at all, and does not increase the number of Tory seats. What it does on the margin is avoid the Tories losing a couple of seats to the LibDems. Otherwise it is a wash.
    Your original post claimed the Tories didn't seem to be benefiting, and now you're explaining why they couldn't possibly benefit in any case. The latter makes me rather question the honesty of the former comment.

    Combined with your 'interesting' seat projection, I'm not sure how well the attempt at looking unbiased is going.
    It is against my political interests to promote the possibility of a hung parliament. As a LibDem I should be spinning why the Tories are going to get a large majority to encourage Tory Remainers to vote LibDem without fear of Corbyn.

    But I'm not spinning. I'm trying to get the best objective handle on what is happening. And I'm sharing it here. But you can ignore it if you want. If you are super confident of a large Tory majority. That's fine.
    Barnesian

    nising that the seats spreads reflect asymetry of outcomes rather than a median)
    If I increase the Tory share from 38.6% to 40.6% and reduce the Labour share from 28.1% to 26.1% then the seats are Con 341, Lab 204, LD 32. This is fairly close to the spreads market.
    14.5% gives a narrow majority.

    I mean really, does this not suggest that you might want to sense check? Your model seems remarkably impervious to votes.
    It gives a majority of 32. A 2% change in share results in a difference of 44 in majority from -12 to +32. It is not insensitive.

    You might be over fixated on lead over Labour and ignoring all the other effects.
    I find it difficult to believe that a 14.5% lead for the Conservatives would only give them a 32 seat majority.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,984

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    How are polling trends looking compared to 2017 now? I'm sure about 19 of our lefty friends were posting the chart daily at the start of this week....

    Courtesy of RobD

    https://imgur.com/HISAOZH
    Couple of the most recent blue dots are well above the Conservative trend line.....
    Trend line is a simple average of the polls within ±3.5 days (so a window of a week).
    Hoping to see a sharp advance upwards!
    Patience, my young padawan.
  • RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    How are polling trends looking compared to 2017 now? I'm sure about 19 of our lefty friends were posting the chart daily at the start of this week....

    Courtesy of RobD

    https://imgur.com/HISAOZH
    Couple of the most recent blue dots are well above the Conservative trend line.....
    Trend line is a simple average of the polls within ±3.5 days (so a window of a week).
    Hoping to see a sharp advance upwards!
    ELBOW should be "interesting" - more on Sunday!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,984

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    How are polling trends looking compared to 2017 now? I'm sure about 19 of our lefty friends were posting the chart daily at the start of this week....

    Courtesy of RobD

    https://imgur.com/HISAOZH
    Couple of the most recent blue dots are well above the Conservative trend line.....
    Trend line is a simple average of the polls within ±3.5 days (so a window of a week).
    Hoping to see a sharp advance upwards!
    ELBOW should be "interesting" - more on Sunday!
    Looking forward to it!
  • some tech guy on 5 live said the Labour plan would delay the continued roll out of fibre until 2025, whilst they completed the renationalisation process.

    Can't see BT investing money they could return to shareholders if Labour win power.

    If current role out continues 50% of population will have access to fibre at end of 2025
  • Charles said:

    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
    That’s what was so clever about my pension idea
    Just looked up your post. Not sure what debate there was this morning, but I think you’d need to unpick a lot of the legislation around how pensions funds are operated. Aren’t most defined contribution schemes now set up as trusts owned by scheme members?
  • some tech guy on 5 live said the Labour plan would delay the continued roll out of fibre until 2025, whilst they completed the renationalisation process.

    Can't see BT investing money they could return to shareholders if Labour win power.

    If current role out continues 50% of population will have access to fibre at end of 2025

    Matthew Howett, analyst and founder of Assembly, also said such a move would be extremely difficult to deliver.

    "This is a spectacularly bad take by the Labour Party. The almost cut throat competition between broadband rivals has meant faster speeds, improved coverage and lower prices for consumers up and down the country.

    "The current government, and independent regulator Ofcom, have spent the last three years incentivising alternative operators to BT to deploy faster fibre technologies. Companies such as Virgin, CityFibre and others have committed billions to rival Openreach. Those plans risk being shelved overnight.

    "Only one other country in the world has come close to going down this route, and for a good reason – it’s hard, expensive and fraught with difficulty. Australia’s NBN is years late, massively over budget and offering speeds and technology a fraction of the original political intention."

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/15/labour_pledges_free_broadband_via_partnationalisation_of_bt/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    camel said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I think this has the potential to turn the whole labkir campaign into a joke. I think the Tories need to work really hard and start advertising and respond with "Will he also be handing out a free iPhone with it?". It really gets to the heart of the matter with one line.

    If one party makes outlandish promises that cannot be kept the public can hold them to account. If both parties are making outlandish promises that cannot be kept, and they are, then there is no accountability for either party.

    Corbyn begets Johnson and vice versa, without each other they would be irrelevant and grown ups could take back control.
    I think the difference is that people have heard extra money for the NHS and all that millions of time. This is a completely new policy and it has got everyone's attention, in a bad way. I haven't come across anyone who thinks it's deliverable. I know someone who votes SWP and even he said it's stupid and if the Tories were clever they would immediately start talking about potential job losses and lost tax income from the broadband providers and VAT.
    Make me your first, it is clearly deliverable, just at a cost. Whether it is desirable is very doubtful.

    If you think there are potential job losses through nationalisation, you are presumably suggesting the government would be more efficient than the private sector?
    What's the cost?

    There's literal replication of duties within the major broadbamd providers. It's probably tens of thousands of jobs.

    We're also shutting down Virgin media broadband as well yes? Because the state provision will cover that.
    There's one off costs, but beyond that the whole network costs £230m per annum to maintain. So £3.95 per capita, Apparently
    According to LAbour. Openreach wage bill is 800 mill per year and total business costs are 2bill per annum.
    Yes.

    Openreach will buy equipment from Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco, Samsung, Siena and others. That equipment will need to be periodically replaced, and there will be maintenance and support contracts attached to it. Staff is only a small portion of the bill.
  • Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
    Yes I suppose you’re right. But I do think that once you’re into removing fundamental rights you better hope you have a majority of more than 100.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    viewcode said:

    Foxy said:

    Alistair said:

    "To what extent would you support or oppose a policy providing free owls to all UK homes and businesses by 2030?" I want to see the polling.....
    'To what extent would you support or oppose a policy of the government having control over UK internet provision by 2030?'
    Porn filter.
    Nationalised porn could be fun...
    No. No, it wouldn't.
    You've clearly not heard of Teresa May
  • Alistair said:
    The state doesn’t build nuclear missiles. It does build nuclear warheads, but it contracts out the management of doing so to the private sector....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    nunu2 said:

    Biden at 13% in Iowa. That is piss poor for him

    https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1195430275032985601

    According to FiveThirtyEight (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/) there's a new Iowa poll showing:
    Warren      21%
    Buttigieg 20%
    Sanders 14%
    Biden 13%
    Klobuchar 9%
    Which is (a) very exciting for Klobuchar backers as it's her best poll in Iowa, e'vah. And (b) shows Biden getting ever further behind the leaders.

    What if he doesn't get any delegates in Iowa?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122

    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
    A citizen could take the government to the ECHR if such a law was passed and I would expect the Supreme Court to rule that the government could not execute any first-born children until the ECHR had ruled.

    Incidentally, I read somewhere that Cummings wanted Britain to leave the ECHR. Is this my over-vivid imagination or has anyone else heard/read this?

    On topic, a lovely article by @Richard_Nabavi. I will certainly get to the Hogarth exhibition now.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    Once a service is competing with the NHS for investment, like schools or even the blooming army, nothing will be spent to improve it except before an election, and nothing at all at times of "austerity" i.e. limiting extra spending to the NHS only.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    rcs1000 said:

    nunu2 said:

    Biden at 13% in Iowa. That is piss poor for him

    https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1195430275032985601

    According to FiveThirtyEight (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/) there's a new Iowa poll showing:
    Warren      21%
    Buttigieg 20%
    Sanders 14%
    Biden 13%
    Klobuchar 9%
    Which is (a) very exciting for Klobuchar backers as it's her best poll in Iowa, e'vah. And (b) shows Biden getting ever further behind the leaders.

    What if he doesn't get any delegates in Iowa?
    It is an American political maxim that "there are only three tickets out of Iowa". I think those three will be Warren, Pete and Bernie. Bernie will lend his delegates to Warren at the convention.
  • I think these are excellent questions to ask of the different parties, and I would wish that journalists would try to concentrate on the more important questions, rather than allow themselves to be diverted by distractions. A few comments on the questions you pose...

    Johnson - This obviously would undercut the Get Brexit Done mantra, but I think they would stick quite strongly to "of course we would get a deal done" so it would depend on whether the public would find that credible. He did, of course, manage to pull a deal out of a hat pretty quickly quite recently. But what sort of deal could he do very quickly?

    Swinson - How can she avoid creating a sense of betrayal in one side of her support or the other? I think they said today that they would decide issues on a case-by-case basis, so that might suggest supporting Corbyn in a confidence vote for the purpose of holding a referendum, but then voting against most of the rest of what he wants to do. There is a budget that will need passing, and tax and spending decisions to be made. It only gets more complicated.

    Corbyn/McDonnell - It's striking that your question doesn't mention Brexit. After all, what would be the point? I did hear a quote from Corbyn recently where he said that his first priority was to bring about a complete end to rough sleeping. So that's a start on the grand task of prioritisation.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Floater said:

    I see that the Independent amongst others are reporting that Labour intend for parliament to set the (purchase) price for the nationalisation of Open Reach etal.

    I bet there are a few nervous investors out there - or would be if it looked half likely that Labour would get into power.

    Thankfully we have recent evidence of the ability of the Supreme Court to prevent Parliament over-reaching. Absent withdrawing from the ECHR and passing Primary Legislation specifically to remove property rights, they’d have a job doing that.
    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
    Yes I suppose you’re right. But I do think that once you’re into removing fundamental rights you better hope you have a majority of more than 100.
    So, in the event of a narrow Labour win you're relying on the remnants of the pre-Corbyn Labour Party asserting themselves in the Commons? Dream on.

    The ones that were prepared to revolt have all gone independent, joined the Lib Dems, gone to seek opportunities elsewhere or retired. If it comes down to relying on the likes of Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn to block expropriation then it's time to trade in your assets for diamonds, sew them into your clothing and flee to Ireland.

    Indeed, I'm not even sure that the SNP or Lib Dems would be an effective check on a Labour minority: you don't know how much they would be willing to let the Revolutionary Friends of Venezuela get away with in exchange for (a) the promise of sundry plebiscites and (b) avoiding the accusation that they're Tories in disguise.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698
    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122
    Cyclefree said:

    Floater said:

    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
    A citizen could take the government to the ECHR if such a law was passed and I would expect the Supreme Court to rule that the government could not execute any first-born children until the ECHR had ruled.

    Incidentally, I read somewhere that Cummings wanted Britain to leave the ECHR. Is this my over-vivid imagination or has anyone else heard/read this?
    And to answer my own question, yes he did. See here - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/after-brexit-they-will-come-for-human-rights-and-this-time-the-public-debate-must-be-won.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122
    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?

    International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Floater said:

    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
    A citizen could take the government to the ECHR if such a law was passed and I would expect the Supreme Court to rule that the government could not execute any first-born children until the ECHR had ruled.

    Incidentally, I read somewhere that Cummings wanted Britain to leave the ECHR. Is this my over-vivid imagination or has anyone else heard/read this?
    And to answer my own question, yes he did. See here - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/after-brexit-they-will-come-for-human-rights-and-this-time-the-public-debate-must-be-won.
    I dislike the idea of relying on a multi-national court, and I suspect many others do too. I think the last year or two has shown the need for a more codified constitution with higher barriers to amending it than a simple majority (not sure how you achieve the latter within our system though to be honest).
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698
    Cyclefree said:

    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?

    International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
    Foreigners did lend even to Greece at its worst moments, but the coupon rate reached 36% at its worst.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,962



    So, in the event of a narrow Labour win you're relying on the remnants of the pre-Corbyn Labour Party asserting themselves in the Commons? Dream on.

    The ones that were prepared to revolt have all gone independent, joined the Lib Dems, gone to seek opportunities elsewhere or retired. If it comes down to relying on the likes of Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn to block expropriation then it's time to trade in your assets for diamonds, sew them into your clothing and flee to Ireland.

    So the only option is a Conservative Government with a huge majority and a Labour Party so completely crushed it is forced to re-invent itself and begin the journey back to centre-party respectability?

    Well, it took Kinnock, Smith and Blair fourteen years from 1983 so that's the Tories in power until 2034.

    All the anecdotal evidence is, apart from the activists who post on here, most people aren't enthused about Johnson or the Conservatives and regard them as the least worst option.

    As election day approaches, it may be things will change - the negative messages about Corbyn will continue but what impact will they have and some may come to view the prospect of a Johnson Government with a majority as less than optimal for the future of this country.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    QE? :wink: If they are that radical we will no longer really be living in a mixed economy never mind a market one!

    All of this could happen due to Brexit. I can live with nationalisation within the EU. Can Brexiteers live with nationalisation in or outside the EU?
  • This election is very different from any in modern history. Apart from the minor issue of Brexit the main opposition party has been taken over by a clique that is quasi Marxist and more fanatical than any group that has ever had a serious chance of forming the government. The Labour brand is very strong and I know a number of people who may well be voting for them as they haven't grasped the astonishing situation in which we find ourselves.

    While Labour are under the control of Momentum/Corbyn/McDonell and remain the main opposition we are in a perilous situation. They are already beginning to blight the economy through the mere threat of their being elected. Even if they lose this election the threat may remain and problems (likely) along the line for a Johnston administration could put us back to being close to disaster. The only hope is that they are thrashed so that they are ousted from the LP or the LDs become the main opposition to the Tories. What is gnawing at me is the fear that there is quite a significant part of the electorate who are pretty ignorant of the history of "left wing" totalitarianism and also the basics of economics. The rebuttals need to be well crafted and not based on a naïve assumption that people will simply get the dangers and risks of Corbyn by simply pointing them out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242
    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,984
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    I think the polls were overstating the lead last time at the end of the campaign, so maybe there is a bit of compensation for that?
  • YouGov and Opinium surveys in progress asking voting preference at constituency level. Eccentrically, having discovered I live in SW Surrey, Opinium asked me what I would vote if Plaid Cymru wasn't standing. YouGov asked for second preferences, but only in "optional" extra questions.

    The biggest potential failing of internet polls could be that the sort of political obsessives that post here seem disproportionately represented in their panels. I'm with yougov, never bothered to sign up with opinium.
  • This election is very different from any in modern history. Apart from the minor issue of Brexit the main opposition party has been taken over by a clique that is quasi Marxist and more fanatical than any group that has ever had a serious chance of forming the government. The Labour brand is very strong and I know a number of people who may well be voting for them as they haven't grasped the astonishing situation in which we find ourselves.

    While Labour are under the control of Momentum/Corbyn/McDonell and remain the main opposition we are in a perilous situation. They are already beginning to blight the economy through the mere threat of their being elected. Even if they lose this election the threat may remain and problems (likely) along the line for a Johnston administration could put us back to being close to disaster. The only hope is that they are thrashed so that they are ousted from the LP or the LDs become the main opposition to the Tories. What is gnawing at me is the fear that there is quite a significant part of the electorate who are pretty ignorant of the history of "left wing" totalitarianism and also the basics of economics. The rebuttals need to be well crafted and not based on a naïve assumption that people will simply get the dangers and risks of Corbyn by simply pointing them out.

    The ashcroft focus group from stoke, Bolton and west brom was scary as hell....it was basically we know what corbyn is, the policies are crazy expensive and no way it all adds up, but we wont become a communist country so what the hell.

    Its the tip.over the apple cart ala brexit mood.
  • kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
  • This election is very different from any in modern history. Apart from the minor issue of Brexit the main opposition party has been taken over by a clique that is quasi Marxist and more fanatical than any group that has ever had a serious chance of forming the government. The Labour brand is very strong and I know a number of people who may well be voting for them as they haven't grasped the astonishing situation in which we find ourselves.

    While Labour are under the control of Momentum/Corbyn/McDonell and remain the main opposition we are in a perilous situation. They are already beginning to blight the economy through the mere threat of their being elected. Even if they lose this election the threat may remain and problems (likely) along the line for a Johnston administration could put us back to being close to disaster. The only hope is that they are thrashed so that they are ousted from the LP or the LDs become the main opposition to the Tories. What is gnawing at me is the fear that there is quite a significant part of the electorate who are pretty ignorant of the history of "left wing" totalitarianism and also the basics of economics. The rebuttals need to be well crafted and not based on a naïve assumption that people will simply get the dangers and risks of Corbyn by simply pointing them out.

    Agreed. I believe in democracy strongly enough that I’m ok with Labour doing all of these things so long as the public understands what it’s voting for. Also, never mind the Tories, there’s surely now an open goal for the LibDems to attack this nonsense on liberal grounds and be the sensible face of the centre left.
  • alb1onalb1on Posts: 698

    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    QE? :wink: If they are that radical we will no longer really be living in a mixed economy never mind a market one!

    All of this could happen due to Brexit. I can live with nationalisation within the EU. Can Brexiteers live with nationalisation in or outside the EU?
    Quantitative easing is not a way of controlling the gilt rate, it is more likely to cause the gilt rate to rise. It only avoids this problem when all principal borrowers (the G20) subscribe to the practice and avoid one being picked off. If you practice QE when others are stopping (or do it to an extent out of line) you will be punished by the market.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    That's already UP 4 compared to the prediction this afternoon (48) :D
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Cyclefree said:

    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?

    International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
    International institutions, lawyers and the financial markets didn't do much to stop Comrades Chavez and Maduro.

    I dislike the idea of relying on a multi-national court, and I suspect many others do too. I think the last year or two has shown the need for a more codified constitution with higher barriers to amending it than a simple majority (not sure how you achieve the latter within our system though to be honest).

    If you have a constitution/basic law then it assumes a personality of its own, and can contain any number of provisions to limit the powers of the institutions that are established under it. The US constitution, for example, can't be altered at the whim of the majority in Congress. Super-majorities at both federal and state level are required in order for any proposed amendment to pass.

    In our system there are no fully effective checks against the will of any simple majority in the Commons that can be found to back a Government and then pass legislation - except for the royal veto, which no monarch since Queen Anne has elected to use.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    This election is very different from any in modern history. Apart from the minor issue of Brexit the main opposition party has been taken over by a clique that is quasi Marxist and more fanatical than any group that has ever had a serious chance of forming the government. The Labour brand is very strong and I know a number of people who may well be voting for them as they haven't grasped the astonishing situation in which we find ourselves.

    While Labour are under the control of Momentum/Corbyn/McDonell and remain the main opposition we are in a perilous situation. They are already beginning to blight the economy through the mere threat of their being elected. Even if they lose this election the threat may remain and problems (likely) along the line for a Johnston administration could put us back to being close to disaster. The only hope is that they are thrashed so that they are ousted from the LP or the LDs become the main opposition to the Tories. What is gnawing at me is the fear that there is quite a significant part of the electorate who are pretty ignorant of the history of "left wing" totalitarianism and also the basics of economics. The rebuttals need to be well crafted and not based on a naïve assumption that people will simply get the dangers and risks of Corbyn by simply pointing them out.

    The problem is the Tories have embarked on spending that is not really viable given Brexit. The Tories have also underestimated the lengths Labour will go too to galvanise their base with elaborate spending commitments. Meanwhile former Tory voters like me will not vote Conservative whilst Johnson is in charge and threatens Brexit. They may well have seriously miscalculated on who will vote for them! :smiley:
  • This election is very different from any in modern history. Apart from the minor issue of Brexit the main opposition party has been taken over by a clique that is quasi Marxist and more fanatical than any group that has ever had a serious chance of forming the government. The Labour brand is very strong and I know a number of people who may well be voting for them as they haven't grasped the astonishing situation in which we find ourselves.

    Um, the same people were in charge of Labour in 2017? So I guess you meant it's different from any election in modern history except the last one?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    Agree. I support them but don't want a landslide. 50 would be brilliant - here's hoping.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,547
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Floater said:

    Except that the Supreme Court found against the executive not the legislature. The big take home lesson from the Supreme Court case is the reassertion of Parliamentary supremacy, as rooted in the tradition of English legal absolutism. The law of the land is always what Parliament says it is.

    If a Labour-dominated Parliament passed a bill that said all first-born children must be sacrificed to the Devil, the only hope of stopping it would be the denial of Royal Assent by HM. Once in law, the Supreme Court wouldn't strike it down - just so long as it were drafted with the appropriate clause making it superior to the Human Rights Act.

    Our system relies critically on the House of Commons not going completely mad. If it does then the Lords can obstruct it for a while (unless the Government succeeds in packing it with a thousand handpicked members of Momentum,) but the only truly effective defence we have against it is, in theory, the Queen. If she observes neutrality in practice then we're all done for.
    A citizen could take the government to the ECHR if such a law was passed and I would expect the Supreme Court to rule that the government could not execute any first-born children until the ECHR had ruled.

    Incidentally, I read somewhere that Cummings wanted Britain to leave the ECHR. Is this my over-vivid imagination or has anyone else heard/read this?
    And to answer my own question, yes he did. See here - https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/after-brexit-they-will-come-for-human-rights-and-this-time-the-public-debate-must-be-won.
    Regardless of ECHR we cannot be certain that the Supreme Court would not strike down a 'First Born' Act. Personally I am sure it would. The SC has the power to overrule itself, and in the circumstances could rule that in some cases it has the power to overrule an otherwise valid Act of Parliament. It's a nuclear option it keeps somewhere just in case. Somehow I cannot see Lady Hale affirming the arbitrary killing of the innocent live on television. HM the Queen keeps an army, whose loyalty is to her not the government, in her locker for the same purpose. The general public also keep alive, and occasionally have practice sessions of, the supreme power of riot, disobedience and mayhem for just in case.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242
    My random gut feel guesses into Electoral Calculus had both Labour and the Tories down 7 seats (each with 2 gains and 9 losses), and the LDs up to a mighty 15. I don't think any of those three would think well of my prediction, it might well be the worst possible outcome of all.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    There will be no independent minded Tory MPs in the new parliament, they will all be robots. A majority of 1 or 100 will make no difference if you don’t follow the whip you will be exterminated.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551
    Always have to remember SF don't take they seats so the electoral calculus prediction is actually closer to a majority of 60 than 50.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242
    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    There will be no independent minded Tory MPs in the new parliament, they will all be robots. A majority of 1 or 100 will make no difference if you don’t follow the whip you will be exterminated.
    It'll start that way, but with 300+ MPs they will not all be able to remain robots indefinitely. Frankly I'm amazed smaller parties manage total unity.
  • If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.
  • Cyclefree said:

    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?

    International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
    International institutions, lawyers and the financial markets didn't do much to stop Comrades Chavez and Maduro.

    I dislike the idea of relying on a multi-national court, and I suspect many others do too. I think the last year or two has shown the need for a more codified constitution with higher barriers to amending it than a simple majority (not sure how you achieve the latter within our system though to be honest).

    If you have a constitution/basic law then it assumes a personality of its own, and can contain any number of provisions to limit the powers of the institutions that are established under it. The US constitution, for example, can't be altered at the whim of the majority in Congress. Super-majorities at both federal and state level are required in order for any proposed amendment to pass.

    In our system there are no fully effective checks against the will of any simple majority in the Commons that can be found to back a Government and then pass legislation - except for the royal veto, which no monarch since Queen Anne has elected to use.
    Yes but what I mean is, how would we establish a constitution? By Act of Parliament? What prevents that from being repealed? Nothing. So you’re into full on Redesign of Britain but in 2019 (and you expose the fact that all laws and all legislatures only mean anything because we all choose to accept that they do). That’s not a trivial task.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242

    If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.

    I think that's reasonable. The Tories will finally have some policies, the debate will have happened, there's been time for momentum to kick in, or be halted. A lack of movement by then would get people outside the leader's office worried.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    GIN1138 said:

    Always have to remember SF don't take they seats so the electoral calculus prediction is actually closer to a majority of 60 than 50.

    There could be more SF this time due to the £2 million bequest.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    There will be no independent minded Tory MPs in the new parliament, they will all be robots. A majority of 1 or 100 will make no difference if you don’t follow the whip you will be exterminated.
    A majority of one gets the Withdrawal Agreement through to be sure. He may need a lot more than that to obtain a free hand in the next phase of negotiations though.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    kle4 said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    There will be no independent minded Tory MPs in the new parliament, they will all be robots. A majority of 1 or 100 will make no difference if you don’t follow the whip you will be exterminated.
    It'll start that way, but with 300+ MPs they will not all be able to remain robots indefinitely. Frankly I'm amazed smaller parties manage total unity.
    I doubt it! ERG members seem to be very awkward. Europe might not be the problem but they will always find something imo.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    kle4 said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    There will be no independent minded Tory MPs in the new parliament, they will all be robots. A majority of 1 or 100 will make no difference if you don’t follow the whip you will be exterminated.
    It'll start that way, but with 300+ MPs they will not all be able to remain robots indefinitely. Frankly I'm amazed smaller parties manage total unity.
    But every Tory candidate has sold their soul to the devil in return for doing what they are told, the same with labour politics is at an all time low driven down by the insanities of corbyn and Johnson. They both need to go but Johnson will win, the tories will rejoice, little will change apart from tax reductions for those that don’t need it and some austerity cuts partially reversed. Corbyn has sold the country down the river in pursuit of his socialist never never land.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.

    Everyone's being very cautious about saying the Tories might win a majority with a 10% lead at this stage in the campaign, and in a way that's understandable after what happened in 2017.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    I think it's the relative strength of the Lib Dems. Historically when the Lib Dems have done well it's been harder for the Tories to win.

    2010 - 7.2% vote share lead - Lib Dems on 23.6% - Tories 20 short of a majority.
    2015 - 6.6% vote share lead - Lib Dems on 8.1% - Tory majority of 10.
    2017 - 2.5% vote share lead - Lib Dems on 7.6% - Tories 9 short of a majority.

    Of course the Brexit realignment might break this pattern and see the Tories home with a much larger majority, but I assume this is the sort of effect at play in various seat models.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    I disagree, hopefully Labour get smashed into the dust both to convince them to ditch the loony tunes and to ensure the Tory loony tunes can be ignored. A small minority will leave Labour potentially thinking one more heave with the loony tunes [maybe one with less antisemitic baggage than Corbyn] would be enough, while also potentially allowing blocs like the ERG to hold the government to ransom.
  • If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.

    With the floods, the NHS, and free broadband labour need to show an improvement fairly quickly. The manifesto's are next week but the conservatives are leaving theirs to the following week

    Quite clever, especially if it has some crowd pleasers as that will take the narrative to the start of the return of the postal votes. My wife and I were notified today our postal votes will be issued onthe 26th November
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,242
    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    nichomar said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's amazing how small a majority can be despite a pretty big lead.
    A majority of 52 looks pretty healthy to me. Not sure anyone wanting a Tory majority should be too concerned about that.
    It's plenty for them, and frankly I don't think very large majorities are good things, it's just that with a 10% lead it feels like landslide territory would be on the cards.
    If boris cant get brexit done with a majority of 50 he really will have been the worst PM ever. 50 for me seems perfect, hopefully big enough for labour to ditch the loony tunes and not too big to let the tory loony tunes go mad.
    There will be no independent minded Tory MPs in the new parliament, they will all be robots. A majority of 1 or 100 will make no difference if you don’t follow the whip you will be exterminated.
    It'll start that way, but with 300+ MPs they will not all be able to remain robots indefinitely. Frankly I'm amazed smaller parties manage total unity.
    But every Tory candidate has sold their soul to the devil in return for doing what they are told, the same with labour politics is at an all time low driven down by the insanities of corbyn and Johnson. They both need to go but Johnson will win, the tories will rejoice, little will change apart from tax reductions for those that don’t need it and some austerity cuts partially reversed. Corbyn has sold the country down the river in pursuit of his socialist never never land.
    It's just not possible for 300 people, however much they sell themselves, to pull in the same direction for any length of time. It'll take time, and something big (unless it's rowing back on anything Europe related, in which case the spartans will rebel immediately), but the automatons will start to act. That's not about comforting us to think the party robots will discover some individuality eventually, it won't be pleasant before we get there, but there will be things some of them won't back.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122
    alb1on said:

    Cyclefree said:

    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any premium rate they need to offer will apply only to the new borrowing. But they will also require new borrowing to fund the general deficit (before these nationalisations) and will need to refinance in excess of £600bn of gilts maturing during the next parliament. A 100 point premium (1%) caused by these plans, applied to these sums and assuming 10 year gilts, would cause an additional cost of circa £100bn over the 10 year lifetime of the gilts.

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?

    International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
    Foreigners did lend even to Greece at its worst moments, but the coupon rate reached 36% at its worst.
    Greece wasn’t confiscating assets, though.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    I dislike the idea of relying on a multi-national court, and I suspect many others do too. I think the last year or two has shown the need for a more codified constitution with higher barriers to amending it than a simple majority (not sure how you achieve the latter within our system though to be honest).

    If you have a constitution/basic law then it assumes a personality of its own, and can contain any number of provisions to limit the powers of the institutions that are established under it. The US constitution, for example, can't be altered at the whim of the majority in Congress. Super-majorities at both federal and state level are required in order for any proposed amendment to pass.

    In our system there are no fully effective checks against the will of any simple majority in the Commons that can be found to back a Government and then pass legislation - except for the royal veto, which no monarch since Queen Anne has elected to use.
    Yes but what I mean is, how would we establish a constitution? By Act of Parliament? What prevents that from being repealed? Nothing. So you’re into full on Redesign of Britain but in 2019 (and you expose the fact that all laws and all legislatures only mean anything because we all choose to accept that they do). That’s not a trivial task.
    A constitution would require some process akin to a Royal Commission to frame it, and there would be arguments for years and years - especially pertaining to what rights it should and should not guarantee, electoral systems, the composition of the upper house, the role of the courts, the balance of power between the central and devolved administrations, the balance of power between the four constituent parts of the country, and the need or otherwise for an English Parliament and a federal system.

    Therefore, it's not going to happen. It's too difficult, the public aren't interested, and present arrangements suit the Tories and Labour.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,850
    After the shit that has gone down in Parliament over the past year, I'm up for a bit of party unity.
  • AndyJS said:

    If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.

    Everyone's being very cautious about saying the Tories might win a majority with a 10% lead at this stage in the campaign, and in a way that's understandable after what happened in 2017.
    Strange that, as a 10 per cent lead in 2017 would have given a big majority. The question in 2019 is whether they will get a lead close that.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited November 2019

    YouGov and Opinium surveys in progress asking voting preference at constituency level. Eccentrically, having discovered I live in SW Surrey, Opinium asked me what I would vote if Plaid Cymru wasn't standing. YouGov asked for second preferences, but only in "optional" extra questions.

    The biggest potential failing of internet polls could be that the sort of political obsessives that post here seem disproportionately represented in their panels.
    But how else will they fill the crucial ex-MP quota?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122

    Cyclefree said:

    alb1on said:

    The Supreme Court may take an interest in Labour's various plans for nationalisation, but it is the market which will stop them. The moment Labour attempts to implement grandiose financial spending or - alternatively - to welch on its financial obligations to current owners and its obligations under international law and treaties ......... the coupon rate for gilts will go through the roof.

    Labour seem to think either that they can borrow massive additional funds at existing rates, or that any

    And remember what happened to the cost of government borrowing when other countries lost control (Spain/Italy/Greece etc, never mind Argentina/Brazil). And remember what happened when Healey went down this path in the 70s.

    That’s assuming they can borrow at all. Why would foreigners lend money to a British government which confiscates their assets?

    International lawyers will be making a mint of money out of all the legal cases there will be. So an ill wind etc.....
    International institutions, lawyers and the financial markets didn't do much to stop Comrades Chavez and Maduro.

    True but they were not subject to the ECHR. It provides us with some protection.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453

    If by this time next week, Labour hasn't shown a clear improvement, they're in trouble.

    Nah, it often takes a week or longer for events to affect polls. The muggles are much less hyperactive than PB regulars.
This discussion has been closed.