The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

ORB/Telegraph:

CON 46 (=)
LAB 32 (+1)
LD 8 (-1)
UKIP 7 (-1)

N=1,508

Writeup http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/exclusive-telegraph-orb-poll-conservatives-lead-across-social/ …

First poll of the campaign to put Labour above the Corbynite "magic number" (31.2% of the GB vote from last time)

[TightEnd]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 47% (+1)
LAB: 32% (+2)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
UKIP: 5% (-2)
GRN: 2% (-)

(via @OpiniumResearch / 09 - 12 May)

[TightEnd]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 48% (-2)
LAB: 30% (+5)
LDEM: 10% (-2)
UKIP: 5% (-2)
GRN: 3% (-)

(via @ComRes)

[TightEnd]

this is a hell of a graph. absolute nerd porn

Fascinating new analysis by marcus roberts: Brexit split UK voters into 3 tribes, with "Re-Leavers" boosting Tories

https://www.ft.com/content/76037a34-36ef-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3?desktop=true

Click to see full-size image.

[TightEnd]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 49% (+3)
LAB: 31% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (-2)
UKIP: 3% (-2)

(via @YouGov)

YouGov's UKIP 3% share is the lowest since 2012. Being squeezed til their pips squeak

[TightEnd]

 The 85 Seats Which Will Change Hands on June 8th ... (Probably)

http://iaindale.com/posts/2017/05/13/the-84-seats-that-will-change-hands-on-june-8th-probably

[TightEnd]

Lib Dem support is down in all 4 polls yesterday 10% in 3, with only 25 days left. something has gone very, very wrong.

one psephologist's thesis was:  Lib Dems made major strategic blunder in ge2017. Gambled on "Brexit realignment" that was clearly only going to be on the right

[TightEnd]

Labour has big spending ideas, but no plan to earn our trust

"However much extra public investment is justified, the current Labour party can’t convince people it is capable of using it wisely"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/13/labour-manifesto-tax-spending-public-sector-election?CMP=twt_gu

[PokerBroker]

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?

This is where I am torn, I don't hve anything against people with private healthcare, my issue is that there are politicians in both sides who are benefiting from the profits of private health care to the detriment of the NHS. 

The same with education I can't understand why private schools get charitable examption and don't pay as much as state schools. 

For me it's about fairness you dont necessarily have to be extreme left wng to want a more balanced society, why can't we put the general hapiness of the population ahead of failed forein policy?  Why do we let some people who are filthy rich away with paying the correct amount of tax, why do we put profit before people. 

The 6th richest country in theworld they keep telling us but there are thousands of people homeless and hungry, our NHS is crumbling, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.  Everyone should be rewarded for an honest day's work.  We should not be bailing out low wage employerswith working tax credits. 

Since Tory Government elected two years ago, minimum wage gone from £6.70 to £7.50 now. That's an increase of 11.94% in that period.

I know it might not be enough for you but is that progress towards not bailing out low wage employers with working tax credits?

Any effort to increase the NMW is welcomed but we should be pushing for a living wage, we should be cutting tax credits particularly when they are benefiting large multi-nationals we should claiming back the tax credits from them through corporation tax.  I understand people are against my ideas of wage cap but I don't understand how those who think that is mad can possibly ignore low wage Britain. 

There is no point in my mind if creating more low paid  unsustainable jobs to create political sound bytes. 

I

[Cf]

I don't understand the difference between minimum wage and living wage. Surely they're the same idea?

My impression is the tories introduced the latter to sound good when on reality they should have just increased the minimum wage.

[RickBFA]

I think that raising the minimum wage by more than inflation every year is a good idea. Me and Pokerbroker actually agree on something. Should be done in steps though.

Reduces the state's tax credits bill.

Should be a trade off with big business - you pay staff more over time and we'll maintain a corporation tax regime that is attractive to keep business based in UK.

[PokerBroker]

I think that raising the minimum wage by more than inflation every year is a good idea. Me and Pokerbroker actually agree on something. Should be done in steps though.

Reduces the state's tax credits bill.

Should be a trade off with big business - you pay staff more over time and we'll maintain a corporation tax regime that is attractive to keep business based in UK.

I would definitely agree with that.

I posted in here after QT a couple of weeks back the guy who was on who is in charge of Siemens is the sort of prime minister and want.

[PokerBroker]

I don't understand the difference between minimum wage and living wage. Surely they're the same idea?

My impression is the tories introduced the latter to sound good when on reality they should have just increased the minimum wage.

Generally the living wage means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, such as, food, shelter, utilities, transport, health care and minimal

I would challenge anyone to try and live on the NMW for a period and see how difficult it actually is.  I think sometimes people who aren't on a poor wage firgey how difficult things can actually be. 

A wage that rewards people and encourages folk into work is win/win you cut benefits, create more wealth generate a greater tax revenue and offer people hope.

[TightEnd]

 Electoral Calculus‏

NEW SCOTTISH PREDICTION: UKIP standing aside helps the Conservatives in four seats, including Moray.

[TightEnd]

The problem for a new party on the left via YouGov

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1b8yww4g1l/SundayTimesResults_170512_VI_W.pdf