UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Classical Mechanic]

Intriguing...

Hung parliament coming up.

 

[Cheesy]

Why isn't Andrew Marr capable of asking tough questions?

Theoretically he's capable of a decent interview: he's got plenty of journalistic experience and in spite of some of his faults knows his stuff. But Neil (along with Paxman) is known specifically for his combative style where the goal isn't just to quiz political leaders but expose their most glaring weaknesses ruthlessly. Marr just doesn't employ the same sort of style as an interviewer.

For what it's worth - there are benefits to both approaches, for as much as I think Neil can sometimes be a ruthlessly brilliant interrogator, he does sometimes dominate the interviewee to the point where he becomes the focus a bit too much. But of one leader is going to be interviewed by him, they all should be.

 

[Grinner]

Theoretically he's capable of a decent interview: he's got plenty of journalistic experience and in spite of some of his faults knows his stuff. But Neil (along with Paxman) is known specifically for his combative style where the goal isn't just to quiz political leaders but expose their most glaring weaknesses ruthlessly. Marr just doesn't employ the same sort of style as an interviewer.

For what it's worth - there are benefits to both approaches, for as much as I think Neil can sometimes be a ruthlessly brilliant interrogator, he does sometimes dominate the interviewee to the point where he becomes the focus a bit too much. But of one leader is going to be interviewed by him, they all should be.

Surely with Boris you can't help but ask tough questions. You'd think Marr would be stoked about getting the opportunity that Brillo isn't and want to really make some news. Is Marr particularly partisan? I've never really watched him.

 

[owlo]

Intriguing...

Almost tempted to share my predicted moving averages for the next week. The margin of errors are still huge though (For FPTP) and there's quite a bit of relevant stuff not built into the models. Still, I feel that familiar smugness coming on.

Patel in fake news shocker:

Wonder if she'll be singing from the same hymm book if and when Israeli prosecutors unseal her involvement in Netanyahu corruption.

I didn't post the speculative parts of the article because they are just that... Speculative. The bits you've quoted literally state "may", "could", "might" several times as below.

I agree productivity is a bit problem but being productive and running a surplus aren't mutually exclusive... Germany have been doing it for years. In fact I'd argue low taxes promote greater investment which promotes greater productivity. I'd argue the tax and spend conservative policies of the last decade have depressed productivity (although this is a problem for many western high tax economies).

I obviously disagree with your statement regarding zero hour contracts as all that I've read on this front states they suit the majority of people who opt for them. My Romanian cleaners are doing in 1 hour what my full time cleaners did in 1.25 hours... They're more productive simply because they work more efficiently (less chatting, less distracting other staff, they don't get paid for not turning up etc)... They earn more per hour than the previous cleaners also. Which I believe over the last few years is a common theme (real terms wage growth), which you'd always expect to lag after a destructive recession.

I'll finish saying that if Blair had stuck to a more responsible 3% spending increase per annum between 1999 and 2006 we'd have been able to spend at £80b extra per annum 2008 -2010 and still be in the same position whilst almost certainly avoiding the worst of the recession. That's the ridiculousness of spending everything you have when times are great, you merely screw yourself over when times aren't (which is almost always less than a decade away). Every family knows you build up a nest egg when times are good.

Have a good weekend though as I'm sure you completely disagree!

"It should be borne in mind however that the extra inputs received may have improved the quality of the output in ways not..."

"period from 2001 to 2007 then the quality of public services might have deteriorated".

"It could also be the case that diminishing marginal returns"

"It may also be the case that the impact of extra inputs on outputs only shows up fully with a lag"

"This could explain why productivity and “bang for each buck”

"However there may be good reasons to expect productivity growth to differ"

"new technologies and management processes may boost productivity in some industries but not others.

You're right, we fundamentally disagree on what the numbers mean. However this is why you shouldn't have posted the paragraph you did in the first place; without context it's meaningless. And the sentence I bolded sums it up quite perfectly:
There are also other technical, but important, differences between the ONS’ measures of public and private sector productivity.9 The absence of data from before 1998 – or comparable data from other countries – makes it impossible to say whether Labour’s performance on public service productivity has been relatively impressive or disappointing.

This is fact. You have simply no way of knowing. So why post it to bash Labour?

I don't think the Brown years were mistake free. But hindsight is extremely easy. The amount we spent between 1999 and 2006 has no bearing on the amount we were able to spend post 2008. Our national debt was low, and a big deal was made over a deficit that didn't entirely matter. Their actions economically were both logical and reasonable.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Yeah, a tenner an hour is feck all money, it's not like he's making it unrealistic.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ge-proposals-institute-fiscal-studies-poverty

 

[Pexbo]

Intriguing...

Usual pollster tricks to make sure the Tory boomers don't get complacent.

 

[Cheesy]

Surely with Boris you can't help but ask tough questions. You'd think Marr would be stoked about getting the opportunity that Brillo isn't and want to really make some news. Is Marr particularly partisan? I've never really watched him.

You can ask tough questions, and any decent interviewer should, but Neil will typically go beyond a tough question and assert that an individual is either lying, talking nonsense, or can't be trusted etc to a degree Marr tends not to.

As for where Marr lies politically, I'm not too sure, he's a bit all over the place. A conservative old man in some respects, I suspect, but not necessarily a dyed-in-the-wool Tory as such.

 

[Cheesy]

Almost tempted to share my predicted moving averages for the next week. The margin of errors are still huge though (For FPTP) and there's quite a bit of relevant stuff not built into the models. Still, I feel that familiar smugness coming on.

It's a weird one insofar as it's difficult to know how to take these polls: on the one hand we've been conditioned to the point where anything other than a Tory majority is good, but at the same time the fact the opposition are having to claw their way back to a position where being six points behind is somehow perceived as good, against a fairly unpopular PM leading a party that's been in government for nearly a decade now, is simultaneously quite bizarre.

The above figures could really bring Scotland into play, though. If the Tories are teetering on a majority then whether they're able to hang onto a lot of their marginal Scottish seats or not will become a major deciding factor in their end election result. Although conversely a slight Labour boost in Scotland could indirectly benefit them in some seats if SNP voters switch to Labour, since the nationalists are their major challengers in every seat they're defending.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Intriguing...

Very intriguing. Though ironically, a tiny Conservative majority is almost the worst of all worlds. Leaves the government at the mercy of mentalist Hard-Brexiteers.

 

[Pexbo]

Very intriguing. Though ironically, a tiny Conservative majority is almost the worst of all worlds. Leaves the government at the mercy of mentalist Hard-Brexiteers.

Really depends on how the remainer Tories fare in this election too which is why Farage's tactic of standing MPs in just a few contested constituencies could come back to bite him in the arse.

If TBP end up with next to no seats which is not unlikely then it will be the Tory remainers who will hold the keys.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

It's really simple folks. The Tories will get their majority and Labour will be fighting it out with the Lib Dems and SNP for scraps. The Tories will even increase their numbers in Scotland and at that point I'll be confident that this country is up the shitter and will start building a Death Stranding style outpost near Loch Lomond to start delivering everyone's Deliveroos once the Royal Mail goes full Private Asshole and only post spam mail through your letterbox.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It's really simple folks. The Tories will get their majority and Labour will be fighting it out with the Lib Dems and SNP for scraps. The Tories will even increase their numbers in Scotland and at that point I'll be confident that this country is up the shitter and will start building a Death Stranding style outpost near Loch Lomond to start delivering everyone's Deliveroos once the Royal Mail goes full Private Asshole and only post spam mail through your letterbox.

Dont the polls in Scotland show the SNP increasing their majority?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Dont the polls in Scotland show the SNP increasing their majority?

Yeah but I'm not falling for that false hope. If the last 9 years have taught me anything it's that the world is fecked.

 

[sammsky1]

Boris Johnson ‘said f*** the families’ of 7/7 terror attacks’
Boris Johnson launched a ‘foul-mouthed tirade’ towards the families of the victims of the 7/7 terror attacks after being told about the cost of inquests, it has been alleged. The claims were made last night by Brian Coleman, who was chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
Read more:https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/boris-johnson-said-f-families-7-7-terror-attacks-9970567/?

 

[Cheesy]

Very intriguing. Though ironically, a tiny Conservative majority is almost the worst of all worlds. Leaves the government at the mercy of mentalist Hard-Brexiteers.

We've already seen an increasing number of Remain/moderate Tories standing down and we have a Brexiteer PM, so I think going forward the likelihood is the Tory party will be fairly united behind his approach to Brexit, and Tory MP's will - in increasing numbers - all be supportive of Brexit. Even if their views vary from person to person, when it comes down to actual parliamentary votes I suspect the vast majority who're going to stray from the government line have already left the party.

 

[Ubik]

It's a weird one insofar as it's difficult to know how to take these polls: on the one hand we've been conditioned to the point where anything other than a Tory majority is good, but at the same time the fact the opposition are having to claw their way back to a position where being six points behind is somehow perceived as good, against a fairly unpopular PM leading a party that's been in government for nearly a decade now, is simultaneously quite bizarre.

The above figures could really bring Scotland into play, though. If the Tories are teetering on a majority then whether they're able to hang onto a lot of their marginal Scottish seats or not will become a major deciding factor in their end election result. Although conversely a slight Labour boost in Scotland could indirectly benefit them in some seats if SNP voters switch to Labour, since the nationalists are their major challengers in every seat they're defending.

I think the main thing is that the Tories have stopped gaining and Labour are still squeezing the don't knows and Lib Dems. Still nearly two weeks to go, and if yet another Tory PM loses their majority (in the sense that Johnson had one that could pass a deal) I will be preeeetty content.

 

[EwanI Ted]

Intriguing...

We usually get 2 or 3 on a Saturday evening, will be interesting to see if they all come out like this. For what its worth, BMG always struck me as pretty poor as pollsters go. They gave the Tories a 13% lead the day before the 2017 general election and had Labour and the Tories neck and neck in their last poll before the 2015 general election. Then again, they've all changed methods since then so who knows this time round.

 

[owlo]

It's a weird one insofar as it's difficult to know how to take these polls: on the one hand we've been conditioned to the point where anything other than a Tory majority is good, but at the same time the fact the opposition are having to claw their way back to a position where being six points behind is somehow perceived as good, against a fairly unpopular PM leading a party that's been in government for nearly a decade now, is simultaneously quite bizarre.

The above figures could really bring Scotland into play, though. If the Tories are teetering on a majority then whether they're able to hang onto a lot of their marginal Scottish seats or not will become a major deciding factor in their end election result. Although conversely a slight Labour boost in Scotland could indirectly benefit them in some seats if SNP voters switch to Labour, since the nationalists are their major challengers in every seat they're defending.

It's been an absolute nightmare, and also really interesting as none of the usual metrics matter as much, so you have to build entirely new models.

From what I've seen SNP/Labour voters are planning to vote quite tactically; they seem more clued in than average. Even many non nationalists are planning on voting SNP. Davidson gone too, the Cons are heading for a wipeout in Scotland.

I actually have Swinson down to lose her seat, though the polls say otherwise. I think that's turned into a real marginal. Certainly it's in play.

On a personal note I'm deeply conflicted. I'll vote Labour, but I dislike Corbyn and a lot of his policies. I think my political leaning is kind of strange though (Libertarian Socialist kinda stance if people want to put a label on it.)

 

[Sassy Colin]

It's a tough choice between vomit and diarrhea.

 

[owlo]

It's a tough choice between vomit and diarrhea.

Yep. Ultimately I guess I believe that leaving the EU and stuff like Universal Credit, PIP, and Priti Patel will be more damaging to the country in the long term than the threat of Labour in a minority government. Let's be fair, they're never going to have the votes to nationalise power or companies. Ask me whether I'd prefer Corbyn or BJ with a clear 100 majority each, and the answer would probably be BJ if I couldn't just shoot myself first.

 

[cyberman]

So vote tactically and end up with a Tory governement anyway with a few second choice politicians up against them?

This could be a disaster

 

[Raven]

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ge-proposals-institute-fiscal-studies-poverty

It helps put more money back into the economy rather than paid out to shareholders or stored in off shore accounts. People fail to understand that the more money in everyone's pockets, the more money in the economy, this is why austerity is a failure.

Would you be okay working a 40 hour week to bring home under £300? I know I wouldn't.

 

[rcoobc]

Hung parliament coming up.

Nope





It's just one poll and not a major one

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It helps put more money back into the economy rather than paid out to shareholders or stored in off shore accounts. People fail to understand that the more money in everyone's pockets, the more money in the economy, this is why austerity is a failure.

Yes, it’s possible that hiking the minimum wage results in greater purchase power for low wage workers, provided that firms either manage to achieve greater productivity from these workers, or cut their profit margins. If not, then it would result in higher prices through wage-push inflation.

In basic terms, setting a national minimum wage is an imperfect balancing act, weighing up the ability of industry to stay competitive (both domestically and when trading internationally) with artificially high input costs, while trying to ensure a basic standard of living for low skill workers. Obviously, if you went to the extreme and jacked the minimum wage up to £30, the economy would collapse overnight - the question is at what point along that scale do the effects on inflation, unemployment and competition outweigh the benefits.

My view is that a minimum wage needs to be just that, a minimum. Labour’s proposals would result in over 25% of private sector employees having their wages directly set by government. At that point, I think it’s no longer a minimum wage and you inevitably start getting some of the negative effects of a centrally planned economy.

I would prefer such a technical decision as setting a minimum wage to be done by an independent economic advisory board rather than politicians. This was the point of the Low Pay Commission after all.

 

[Mogget]

 

[Fluctuation0161]

If half of these stories about Johnsons ridiculous incompetence and backward views got the real traction they deserved he would be unelectable.

 

[owlo]

@MikeUpNorth One of the quirks of this post recession period [and tory economic management] has been low unemployment but lower real term wages. Some analysts have been quietly suggesting recently that employment numbers are being fudged, but I'm not so sure. I think what we're seeing is lower hours and therefore wages and productivity in real terms. This is why there's no real inflationary pressure; interest rates are low and staying there. But it also prevents monetary stimuli. Therefore in the current circumstances, real wages/minimum wage could afford to be nudged up a wee bit, and cause a little more unemployment which I don't think would be a bad thing. Our cyclical unemployment is currently super low which obviously causes productivity and morale problems.

That said, I'm not quoting your original thread because in essence I agree with you. It should be an economic not a political decision. I'd support something radical like universal basic income [in principle] before a ridiculous minimum wage.

 

[DavelinaJolie]

If the beeb have any balls they'll let Johnson get into the seat on Marr, have Marr get up and leave and Andrew Neill walk in to take his place.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Boris Johnson ‘said f*** the families’ of 7/7 terror attacks’
Boris Johnson launched a ‘foul-mouthed tirade’ towards the families of the victims of the 7/7 terror attacks after being told about the cost of inquests, it has been alleged. The claims were made last night by Brian Coleman, who was chair of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
Read more:https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/16/boris-johnson-said-f-families-7-7-terror-attacks-9970567/?

Problem with that story is that the accuser can be interpreted as having an axe to grind and his story has been dismissed by the other witness. The story from the ‘top prosecutor’ is much more interesting for me.

 

[Mockney]

I would prefer such a technical decision as setting a minimum wage to be done by an independent economic advisory board rather than politicians. This was the point of the Low Pay Commission after all.

You, a sensible concerned citizen: We should set up an independent advisory board to deal with this potentially partisan issue.

Me, a Tory cabinet minister: I agee wholeheartedly! Here is a list of 15 mad old fascist Tories whose kitchens I’ve been sick in, that I will entrust the formation of this panel to, at the tax payers very generous expense.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

You, a sensible concerned citizen: We should set up an independent advisory board to deal with this potentially partisan issue.

Me, a Tory cabinet minister: I agee wholeheartedly! Here is a list of 15 mad old fascist Tories whose kitchens I’ve been sick in, that I will entrust the formation of this panel to, at the tax payers very generous expense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Pay_Commission

It already exists - politicians just seem increasingly fond of ignoring expert advice.

 

[mad1max954]

This is completely misleading and suggests either an attempt to deceive or a critical misunderstanding of the facts.

Debt [As % of gdp] was 40.4% in 1997, and 36.4% in 2008.It was 60% when the conservatives came to power. A 3% deficit was perfectly reasonable. Inflation was low and finance/property was driving it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

Of course there were small mistakes here and there, but to suggest 'labour ran up the deficit' is just junk.

my point is that it was in a time of real prosperity actual Debt increased by almost 200billion in that 10 year period. Yes as a percentage of GDP it did infact go down but that was not enough and because of the massive growth it the percentage hides that’s debt did actually increase. This was from a man who claimed that boom and boost was gone.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

@MikeUpNorth One of the quirks of this post recession period [and tory economic management] has been low unemployment but lower real term wages. Some analysts have been quietly suggesting recently that employment numbers are being fudged, but I'm not so sure. I think what we're seeing is lower hours and therefore wages and productivity in real terms. This is why there's no real inflationary pressure; interest rates are low and staying there. But it also prevents monetary stimuli. Therefore in the current circumstances, real wages/minimum wage could afford to be nudged up a we bit, and cause a little more unemployment which I don't think would be a bad thing. Our cyclical unemployment is currently super low which obviously causes productivity and morale problems.

That said, I'm not quoting your original thread because in essence I agree with you. It should be an economic not a political decision. I'd support something radical like universal basic income [in principle] before a ridiculous minimum wage.

Interesting analysis.

That lower hours (and therefore lower wages) theory could also be a contributory factor to the increases in poverty. Which I guess would support this conclusion.

 

[Pexbo]

It's a tough choice between vomit and diarrhea.

Choose the one which looks after you the best and does the most damage to poor people.

 

[Sweet Square]

You think that clip shows me anything I didn’t already know about the Tories?

but saying that, attitudes like that aren’t limited to families like the Johnsons Sweet Square are they?

Of course not, I mean there's still the rest of the tory party to add in.

Its just odd(Well it really isn't) that your going to vote for a prime minster, who fundamentally thinks your just a little better than a peasant(Johnstone think the same about me as well but you know I'm not going to be giving him my vote).

 

[MikeUpNorth]

@MikeUpNorth One of the quirks of this post recession period [and tory economic management] has been low unemployment but lower real term wages. Some analysts have been quietly suggesting recently that employment numbers are being fudged, but I'm not so sure. I think what we're seeing is lower hours and therefore wages and productivity in real terms. This is why there's no real inflationary pressure; interest rates are low and staying there. But it also prevents monetary stimuli. Therefore in the current circumstances, real wages/minimum wage could afford to be nudged up a wee bit, and cause a little more unemployment which I don't think would be a bad thing. Our cyclical unemployment is currently super low which obviously causes productivity and morale problems.

That said, I'm not quoting your original thread because in essence I agree with you. It should be an economic not a political decision. I'd support something radical like universal basic income [in principle] before a ridiculous minimum wage.

Interesting, but I'm not aware of evidence that people are working fewer hours. In fact, one of the theories I have read is that a major factor in holding down real wages is that people responded to the recession by being willing to work longer hours to offset wage cuts, and hence the relative oversupply of labour from elastic hours holding down wage growth despite historically low unemployment.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...loyment-still-low-we-are-working-longer-hours

The Resolution Foundation research shows that the UK is working an extra 65m hours each week than it would be if the employment rate was the same now as it was in 2008 and the trend towards a shorter working week had continued. That helps explain why above-inflation increases in the minimum wage have so far been absorbed without any impact on the level of employment.

It also explains why wage pressure has been so muted, because an increase in labour supply has meant it has taken much longer than expected for upward pressure on pay to build. To an extent, workers have been running just to stand still.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Britain’s Dirty Election
A serial liar. A campaign of online disinformation. The risk of foreign meddling. Sound familiar?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/opinion/britain-election-disinformation-johnson.html

 

[Pexbo]

Armando Iannucci (@Aiannucci) Tweeted:
If any journalist manages to get a word with Johnson today, can you ask him to explain this passage hidden away on p50 of his manifesto, an ominous intent to redraw all aspects of power. Attacking Channel4 isn’t a one-off; he mustn’t be trusted with a majority. https://t.co/kcfPSm5FON

 

[Volumiza]

Of course not, I mean there's still the rest of the tory party to add in.

Its just odd(Well it really isn't) that your going to vote for a prime minster, who fundamentally thinks your just a little better than a peasant(Johnstone think the same about me as well but you know I'm not going to be giving him my vote).

Stanley Johnson’s sneering attitude was no different to the attitude a lot of posters on this thread display to anyone who dares admit they stand outside the perimeter of the current Labour Party.

I see myself as a floating voter these days and while I respect your views I just can’t tune into Corbyn and McDonnell, sorry.