The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

soin the com res survey yesterday a lot of the Laked policies are popular

eg 52% in favour of renationalising railways

79% in favour of banning sero hours etc etc

two big problems though

On which party 'seems to have more realistic and well thought through policies': Conservatives: 51% Labour: 31% (via @ComRes / 11 May)

Jeremy Corbyn... Should be given a fair chance at leading the country: 30% Would be a disaster as PM: 56% (via @ComRes / 11 May)


in 2015 the Miliband manifesto was more popular than the con one in surveys, they didn't think he was a prime minister though.

in essence our election is presidential,in a parliamentary system. Voters have to like the thought of and believe in the leader as a PM....

[TightEnd]

thought this was an interesting thread from Prof Matthew Goodwin

Theresa May & team zooming in on patriotism, community & the working class aka territory where Labour has struggled (ie idea that Corbyn is anti british,anti armed forces etc)

1 Have grasped the value divide that has underpinned (a) 2001-2010 w class apathy -> (b) 2012-2015 rise of Ukip -> (c) 2016 vote for Brexit

2 Grasped that workers closer to Right on cultural axis - value national ID, patriotism, limits on migration, anti-EU- & as imp as economics

3 One reason since 2010 Lab lost votes due to disconnect on this cultural terrain

4 This not new. Since 1997 others shown how Lab "liberal consensus" on pro-EU & pro-immigration alienated large chunk of Labour electorate

5 I found it symbolic of Labour's dire state that when Geoff Evans recently explained this on Newsnight (some) Lab MPs insulted him

6 In June some of those Labour MPs will lose their seats because they and party failed to grasp what was happening to Labour's electorate

7 May & Team, meanwhile, will hoover up /DE workers by talking not about redistribution & trident but patriotism, community & belonging

8 Blue Labour agenda now being turned back on Labour. Perhaps 2010-2015 Miliband & others failed to take this as far as it could have gone

9 Any new centre left party will have to take it far more seriously. Winning coalition in UK Lab needs more than bland Macron Third Way-ism

10 another major problem for the left. Discussion of community & identity = "playing the race card".

[TightEnd]

so this articlelinks to those 10 points above

New: How Labour's electorate is fragmenting under Corbyn.  latest analysis for POLITICO Europe http://politi.co/2qz0G5n 

"nearly three-quarters of Labour’s 2010 voters went on to vote for Labour again in 2015. But today, fewer than half of these voters say they are planning to back the party in June."

etc etc.a good read for the nerds trying to understand it all

[Woodsey]

i thought this was interesting. support for far right and far left policies (far = how they are described)

Click to see full-size image.

Not of the left ones seem especially radical. When I think of 'radical far left' I am thinking of stuff like 100% tax over certain thresholds and insisting on everything being gender neutral.

Right ones seem pretty radical

I see nothing radical about take the offer or employment or lose benefits one, in fact I think we should do it unless they have a very good reason! Sort the lazy arses out! 

[Doobs]

In what way is the economy rigged?  I just watched a video from one of Corbyn's bright young things supposedly about the rigged economy and am genuinely none the wiser.

To me this suggests that there is lots of illegal goings on, and such suggestions were only made by those in tin foil hats.  So person A only pays less tax than person B, because he is related to Lord Snooty kind of thing.

I understand how the rich do better in life as a whole, but that is because they start with more money.
I understand that those who go to public schools do better, but that is down to a better education and better connected friends/parents etc.
I understand how powerful people like to speak to other powerful people.  Human nature means that most people choose to interact with people that are going to improve their lot.
I understand why some fella with a public school/Oxbridge background may find it easier to get inside some companies than I do.
I even think things like crime, bribery and nepotism are always going to happen whether or not you rig the economy or not.

There are lots of these kind of things, but they are all explainable without any rigging going on.
For instance, I don't like the fact private schools get charitable status, but once they have it, then I don't think treating them like you would any other charity is rigging the economy.  You are on a bit of a slippery slope where you start picking which charities get which charitable status on political grounds.

So where is the rigging going on, and what does it involve?     

Nobody want to answer this?

I have done a bit more reading, and it appears to come from Bernie Saunders campaign for the Presidency.  

It seems that if the right follow their policies they are rigging the economy.  

For example if you have a policy of zero inheritance tax for all and that results in lots of sons of daughters becoming more rich than they "should" you are not following your policies, you are rigging the economy.  I am not sure if it works the other way, so if you have affirmative action in favour of some minority or some underrepresented class, then you aren't rigging the economy.  And the reason they aren't rigging the economy seems purely to be down to who benefits or who proposes the policy.  Interesting use of the English language there.

I was trying to think of policies that "rig" the economy in favour of the wealthier people, and obviously reducing inheritance tax, corporation tax and higher rate tax would be good examples, as would introducing more grammar schools.  But if you wanted to get rid of the "rigged economy", would you really offer free university education for students?    University education benefits the rich far more than the poor.  Or would you renationalise the railways so that commuters can pay lower railfares?  If you had a choice of spending your £12 billion and your am is to get rid of this "rigged economy", do you spend it on free university education or reversing social care cuts/increasing benefits etc.  

FWIW If this seems biassed against labour, I am just trying to get my head round something.

May wins hands down for brass neck this morning with "Labour deserting the working class".  

[TightEnd]

fwiw latest blonde poll voting

Conservative    - 15 (36.6%)
Labour    - 6 (14.6%)
Lib Dem    - 9 (22%)
UKIP    - 0 (0%)
Green    - 0 (0%)
Nationalist party eg SNP, Plaid    - 5 (12.2%)
Don't intend to vote    - 4 (9.8%)
I really don't know yet    - 2 (4.9%)
   
Total Voters: 41

[DaveShoelace]

i thought this was interesting. support for far right and far left policies (far = how they are described)

Click to see full-size image.

Not of the left ones seem especially radical. When I think of 'radical far left' I am thinking of stuff like 100% tax over certain thresholds and insisting on everything being gender neutral.

Right ones seem pretty radical

I see nothing radical about take the offer or employment or lose benefits one, in fact I think we should do it unless they have a very good reason! Sort the lazy arses out! 

The other three pretty radical though, obvs

[TightEnd]

In what way is the economy rigged?  I just watched a video from one of Corbyn's bright young things supposedly about the rigged economy and am genuinely none the wiser.

To me this suggests that there is lots of illegal goings on, and such suggestions were only made by those in tin foil hats.  So person A only pays less tax than person B, because he is related to Lord Snooty kind of thing.

I understand how the rich do better in life as a whole, but that is because they start with more money.
I understand that those who go to public schools do better, but that is down to a better education and better connected friends/parents etc.
I understand how powerful people like to speak to other powerful people.  Human nature means that most people choose to interact with people that are going to improve their lot.
I understand why some fella with a public school/Oxbridge background may find it easier to get inside some companies than I do.
I even think things like crime, bribery and nepotism are always going to happen whether or not you rig the economy or not.

There are lots of these kind of things, but they are all explainable without any rigging going on.
For instance, I don't like the fact private schools get charitable status, but once they have it, then I don't think treating them like you would any other charity is rigging the economy.  You are on a bit of a slippery slope where you start picking which charities get which charitable status on political grounds.

So where is the rigging going on, and what does it involve?     

Nobody want to answer this?

I have done a bit more reading, and it appears to come from Bernie Saunders campaign for the Presidency. 

It seems that if the right follow their policies they are rigging the economy. 

For example if you have a policy of zero inheritance tax for all and that results in lots of sons of daughters becoming more rich than they "should" you are not following your policies, you are rigging the economy.  I am not sure if it works the other way, so if you have affirmative action in favour of some minority or some underrepresented class, then you aren't rigging the economy.  And the reason they aren't rigging the economy seems purely to be down to who benefits or who proposes the policy.  Interesting use of the English language there.

I was trying to think of policies that "rig" the economy in favour of the wealthier people, and obviously reducing inheritance tax, corporation tax and higher rate tax would be good examples, as would introducing more grammar schools.  But if you wanted to get rid of the "rigged economy", would you really offer free university education for students?    University education benefits the rich far more than the poor.  Or would you renationalise the railways so that commuters can pay lower railfares?  If you had a choice of spending your £12 billion and your am is to get rid of this "rigged economy", do you spend it on free university education or reversing social care cuts/increasing benefits etc.   

FWIW If this seems biassed against labour, I am just trying to get my head round something.

May wins hands down for brass neck this morning with "Labour deserting the working class". 

if someone can afford to go private (healthcare, schooling etc) this should be encouraged as it reduces the burden on the NHS, class sizes etc and allows those resources to be directed towards those who need them.

yes? (playing devils advocate a bit). but the existence of private means of getting healthcare, schooling etc is seen as rigging in favour of the haves over the have nots?

[Doobs]

In what way is the economy rigged?  I just watched a video from one of Corbyn's bright young things supposedly about the rigged economy and am genuinely none the wiser.

To me this suggests that there is lots of illegal goings on, and such suggestions were only made by those in tin foil hats.  So person A only pays less tax than person B, because he is related to Lord Snooty kind of thing.

I understand how the rich do better in life as a whole, but that is because they start with more money.
I understand that those who go to public schools do better, but that is down to a better education and better connected friends/parents etc.
I understand how powerful people like to speak to other powerful people.  Human nature means that most people choose to interact with people that are going to improve their lot.
I understand why some fella with a public school/Oxbridge background may find it easier to get inside some companies than I do.
I even think things like crime, bribery and nepotism are always going to happen whether or not you rig the economy or not.

There are lots of these kind of things, but they are all explainable without any rigging going on.
For instance, I don't like the fact private schools get charitable status, but once they have it, then I don't think treating them like you would any other charity is rigging the economy.  You are on a bit of a slippery slope where you start picking which charities get which charitable status on political grounds.

So where is the rigging going on, and what does it involve?     

Nobody want to answer this?

I have done a bit more reading, and it appears to come from Bernie Saunders campaign for the Presidency. 

It seems that if the right follow their policies they are rigging the economy. 

For example if you have a policy of zero inheritance tax for all and that results in lots of sons of daughters becoming more rich than they "should" you are not following your policies, you are rigging the economy.  I am not sure if it works the other way, so if you have affirmative action in favour of some minority or some underrepresented class, then you aren't rigging the economy.  And the reason they aren't rigging the economy seems purely to be down to who benefits or who proposes the policy.  Interesting use of the English language there.

I was trying to think of policies that "rig" the economy in favour of the wealthier people, and obviously reducing inheritance tax, corporation tax and higher rate tax would be good examples, as would introducing more grammar schools.  But if you wanted to get rid of the "rigged economy", would you really offer free university education for students?    University education benefits the rich far more than the poor.  Or would you renationalise the railways so that commuters can pay lower railfares?  If you had a choice of spending your £12 billion and your am is to get rid of this "rigged economy", do you spend it on free university education or reversing social care cuts/increasing benefits etc.   

FWIW If this seems biassed against labour, I am just trying to get my head round something.

May wins hands down for brass neck this morning with "Labour deserting the working class". 

if someone can afford to go private (healthcare, schooling etc) this should be encouraged as it reduces the burden on the NHS, class sizes etc and allows those resources to be directed towards those who need them.

yes? (playing devils advocate a bit). but the existence of private means of getting healthcare, schooling etc is seen as rigging in favour of the haves over the have nots?

Well yes, it seems so.  But even if there were no private schools, people who had money will still move near the good schools and tutor their kids to get through the 11+.  I think education "rigging" is pretty hard to solve and making baffling speaches about the rigged economy is not offering a solition.  Also though grants/free education appear to favour the poor, the main beneficiaries will be the richest 50% of families.

[ripple11]

In what way is the economy rigged?  I just watched a video from one of Corbyn's bright young things supposedly about the rigged economy and am genuinely none the wiser.

To me this suggests that there is lots of illegal goings on, and such suggestions were only made by those in tin foil hats.  So person A only pays less tax than person B, because he is related to Lord Snooty kind of thing.

I understand how the rich do better in life as a whole, but that is because they start with more money.
I understand that those who go to public schools do better, but that is down to a better education and better connected friends/parents etc.
I understand how powerful people like to speak to other powerful people.  Human nature means that most people choose to interact with people that are going to improve their lot.
I understand why some fella with a public school/Oxbridge background may find it easier to get inside some companies than I do.
I even think things like crime, bribery and nepotism are always going to happen whether or not you rig the economy or not.

There are lots of these kind of things, but they are all explainable without any rigging going on.
For instance, I don't like the fact private schools get charitable status, but once they have it, then I don't think treating them like you would any other charity is rigging the economy.  You are on a bit of a slippery slope where you start picking which charities get which charitable status on political grounds.

So where is the rigging going on, and what does it involve?     

Nobody want to answer this?

I have done a bit more reading, and it appears to come from Bernie Saunders campaign for the Presidency. 

It seems that if the right follow their policies they are rigging the economy. 

For example if you have a policy of zero inheritance tax for all and that results in lots of sons of daughters becoming more rich than they "should" you are not following your policies, you are rigging the economy.  I am not sure if it works the other way, so if you have affirmative action in favour of some minority or some underrepresented class, then you aren't rigging the economy.  And the reason they aren't rigging the economy seems purely to be down to who benefits or who proposes the policy.  Interesting use of the English language there.

I was trying to think of policies that "rig" the economy in favour of the wealthier people, and obviously reducing inheritance tax, corporation tax and higher rate tax would be good examples, as would introducing more grammar schools.  But if you wanted to get rid of the "rigged economy", would you really offer free university education for students?    University education benefits the rich far more than the poor.  Or would you renationalise the railways so that commuters can pay lower railfares?  If you had a choice of spending your £12 billion and your am is to get rid of this "rigged economy", do you spend it on free university education or reversing social care cuts/increasing benefits etc.   

FWIW If this seems biassed against labour, I am just trying to get my head round something.

May wins hands down for brass neck this morning with "Labour deserting the working class". 

if someone can afford to go private (healthcare, schooling etc) this should be encouraged as it reduces the burden on the NHS, class sizes etc and allows those resources to be directed towards those who need them.

yes? (playing devils advocate a bit). but the existence of private means of getting healthcare, schooling etc is seen as rigging in favour of the haves over the have nots?

Yes  I mentioned this before...rather than a 20% tax on private school fees and removing charitable status from them, Labour should be saying the opposite! and encouraging state school places to be released by parents who would like to spend some of their disposable income on their kids education.
The same with private health care...let people "pay twice" if they want and release pressure on the NHS. 

[Sheriff Fatman]

you might have picked up that UKIP is skint. yesterday was the deadline for nominations and they are only standing in 400 of 652 seats

this has big implications for some constituencies

no UKIP, majority go Con?

some egs

No UKIP candidate in Leeds NW where alex sobel is up against LD's Greg Mulholland again. UKIP got 3,000 votes in 2015, majority is 3,000

No UKIP candidate in Ben Bradshaw's Exeter seat. UKIP got 5,000 votes in 2015; majority is 7,183 votes for Labour over Tories

No UKIP candidate in Wrexham. UKIP got 5,072 votes in 2015; majority is 1,831 for Labour over Conservatives.


@election_data have masses of these. no time to go through them and double check the constituency betting markets

however the big right wing shift ukip to Con is going to turn plenty of seats conservative and not standing in 250 seats exacerbates this

This one is my constituency, so I'm surprised to see it on the list, as it's currently a 3k majority for Lib Dems over Labour.  The Tories were 8,000 votes short last time. 

I seriously doubt Greg's seat is under threat as there will be plenty of Labour votes moving to Lib Dem from 2015 (including mine).

The Tories have put a stronger candidate than 2015 (a nearby local councillor) so I think there's a good chance that they'll overtake Labour into 2nd place, but the UKIP votes moving to Tory wouldn't have an impact here, in isolation.

General Election 2015: Leeds North West
Party   Candidate   Votes   %   ±
Liberal Democrat   Greg Mulholland   15,948   36.8   -10.7
Labour   Alex Sobel   13,041   30.1   +9.1
Conservative   Alex Story   8,083   18.6   -7.9
Green   Tim Goodall   3,042   7.0   +5.8
UKIP   Julian Metcalfe   2,997   6.9   +5.5
Yorkshire First   Bob Buxton   143   0.3   N/A
Alliance for Green Socialism   Mike Davies   79   0.2   -0.1
Above and Beyond   Mark Flanagan   24   0.1   N/A
Majority   2,907   6.7   
Turnout   43,357   70.0   
Liberal Democrat hold   Swing   -9.9   

[TightEnd]

On British membership of the Eurovision Song Contest: Remain: 44% Leave: 56% (via @YouGov / 08 - 09 May)

[rfgqqabc]

Can you really say the market economy has made Britain prosperous ten years into recession? Early success a better term? Feels like a hopeful quote about a huge timeline.

Enjoyed the last weeks posts, ty all.

If Britain got rid of trident, would you care? 31bn is so much money

[Ironside]

some idiots in this country!!!!!!!

a guy was elected as a Councillor last week aged 72. He promised to donate £1k a year to 5 different schools in his ward. He also claimed to have never been aligned with any party, despite having stood in the 90s as a tory candidate.
5 days after winning his seat he resigns costing the public £25k which could of gone to local schools.

Freaking Idiot

[TightEnd]

If Corbyn holds on, there will be a new party because public pressure will demand it

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/counter-revolution-begins-comrades-12-june/