General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Joe_ Public

bren2001 wrote: »

Would you ever get a hold of yourself?

As a Labour supporter, the interview last night went fine from my perspective. I'm sure Tory supporters can say Corbyn was poor. It was in no way earth shattering and Neil didn't land a killer blow at all. It was a defensive approach from Corbyn and it worked (from my perspective).

I look forward to tomorrow night when you vigorously defend Boris when Neil takes him apart.

I like how you failed to comment on the 400 page document exposing the fact that the NHS is on the table in US-trade negotiations and focus on Jeremy.

I didnt think it was great for corbyn but wouldnt exaggerate the fall out either. It was just a usual neil bruiser, latching onto every anti corbyn trope going - antisemitism, weak on brexit, tax and spend, national security - just four topics covered and harangued him every opportunity. Also seems that the bbc research on the antisemitism question was sloppy and misplaced so black mark against neil for that.

Letwin_Larry

Corbyn looked tetchy and defensive, and the message he wants to get across about the NHS or whatever is being lost amid this antisemitism row.

as the adage goes "when you're explaining you're losing".

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Seems that may have been the case again tonight.

Thread:

https://twitter.com/jrschlosberg/status/1199450735345360896

Total misrepresentation. Yet again another case of Labour supporters spreading misinformation or using deceptive techniques.

See here:

Andrew Neil was 100% correct in his question.

https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1199665107040649217

bren2001

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

With all due respect, you are the the kind of person to ask what they think of Corbyn's performance.

You already a Labour supporter.

It's what the undecided think that matters.

I agree. I don't think the undecided voters really care about anti-semitism which are the headlines. I dont think there was much in the interviewer to put off the undecided voter. It was a really boring interview (which from my perspective is fine). I don't think it was in any way apocolyptic or seismic.

Boris tomorrow could be interesting. If Neil lands a glove or two on the NHS. That could sway undecided voters. Brexit, fishing, Islamophobia, Russia or the other topics won't sway voters imo.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of the backlash against the Rabbi, let's not forget that 93% of UK Jews will not vote for the Labour Party.

Says Robert Philpot - until 2014 a director of the Blairite New Labour pressure group Progress - in The Times of Israel quoting the poll published on 24th Oct in the Jewish Chronicle.

As a source I seriously doubt it's lack of bias.

Plus in the the JC article it says

'just 12 per cent of respondents to the survey, conducted by the polling firm Survation for the JC, said they would rather see the Labour leader in Downing Street than exiting the European Union without a deal.
When asked separately whether they would consider voting Labour at the next general election with or without Mr Corbyn as Labour leader, just 7 per cent said they would consider supporting the party.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/overwhelming-majority-of-british-jews-would-prefer-no-deal-brexit-to-jeremy-corbyn-government-1.490590

7% of the people who bothered to respond saying they will vote LP does not = 93% of British Jews will not Labour.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Says Robert Philpot - until 2014 a director of the Blairite New Labour pressure group Progress - in The Times of Israel quoting the poll published on 24th Oct in the Jewish Chronicle.

As a source I seriously doubt it's lack of bias.

Plus in the the JC article it says https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/overwhelming-majority-of-british-jews-would-prefer-no-deal-brexit-to-jeremy-corbyn-government-1.490590

7% of the people who bothered to respond saying they will vote LP does not = 93% of British Jews will not Labour.

From the same article:

A poll conducted on the eve of the 2017 general election showed 77% of Jews planned to back the Tories and only 13% Labour.

Whatever way you cut it, British Jews do not trust Jeremy Corbyn. If you can provide a legitimate poll in which the majority of British Jews are willing to opt for Corbyn, I'd be happy to see it. Andrew Neil last night quoted a similar figure of 80% (though I can't recall the exact source he used).

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

From the same article:



Whatever way you cut it, British Jews do not trust Jeremy Corbyn. If you can provide a legitimate poll in which the majority of British Jews are willing to opt for Corbyn, I'd be happy to see it. Andrew Neil last night quoted a similar figure of 80% (though I can't recall the exact source he used).

Did they base that on asking the same number of people?

Survation carried out the poll by questioning 766 self-identified Jewish residents aged over 18 in the UK between September 19 and October 14.

Let's break this down shall we?

Survation asked 766 people who identify as Jewish out of a total Jewish population of just under 300 k and 97% of those who responded said they would not vote for the LP and somehow this has become 97% of all British Jews?

Is that part of the new maths where retaining 19k means 50k more in 10 years?

Mr.Wemmick

bren2001 wrote: »

Would you ever get a hold of yourself?

As a Labour supporter, the interview last night went fine from my perspective. I'm sure Tory supporters can say Corbyn was poor. It was in no way earth shattering and Neil didn't land a killer blow at all. It was a defensive approach from Corbyn and it worked (from my perspective).

I look forward to tomorrow night when you vigorously defend Boris when Neil takes him apart.

I like how you failed to comment on the 400 page document exposing the fact that the NHS is on the table in US-trade negotiations and focus on Jeremy.

I agree. I am not a labour supporter, but everyone I know in the UK, including myself will vote for Labour. The support on-line is electric.. the more the tory rags lie and Johnson blusters, the less people believe it. It's great to see people waking up to the disaster of the tory reign at long last.

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Says Robert Philpot - until 2014 a director of the Blairite New Labour pressure group Progress - in The Times of Israel quoting the poll published on 24th Oct in the Jewish Chronicle.

As a source I seriously doubt it's lack of bias.

This is an identical problem with both main parties in Westminster. Splits and divisions within their own ranks that makes them incapable of looking outside their own navels.

ArmaniJeanss

Labour are only polling at 30% so it's hardly surprising that there is a subset of the electorate where only 10% will vote for them. There will also be subsets where 50% will vote for them.
It's statistically quite normal.

For the Jewish vote, some of this will doubtless will be because of the anti-Semitism issue. And some will be because Labour policies in other area just don't correspond with the traditional Jewish mindset.

Worth recalling that Ed Miliband's Labour only had 15% Jewish support, so the figures for JC's Labour aren't some dramatic fall-off.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Worth recalling that Ed Miliband's Labour only had 15% Jewish support, so the figures for JC's Labour aren't some dramatic fall-off.

The difference is that:

• Ed Miliband didn't have a dubious history of flirting with extreme anti-Semites.
• Ed Miliband didn't have an anti-Semitism crisis within the party.

In other words, this is a different election and Jewish voters have different reasons for opposing Corbyn.

VinLieger

Eskimo, do you have anything to say on the 451 pages of trade papers revealed today implying the NHS is most definitely for sale as well as showcasing phrases like

The US will ban any mention of climate change in a US-UK trade deal

Really looking forward to your reply

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Eskimo, do you have anything to say on the 451 pages of trade papers revealed today implying the NHS is most definitely for sale as well as showcasing phrases like

Really looking forward to your reply

Yes, I do.

As Andrew Neil has pointed out, as generic drugs are cheaper in the US - and as most drugs used in the UK are generic - any higher cost drugs are in the very minority, so let's put that fact in perspective.

In terms of large scale privatisation, that is fear mongering and I personally do not believe it will happen on some large scale. It's electoral spin.

Third, I don't think this will sway Brexit voters who want to Get Brexit Done.

Fourth, it will only reinforce the Labour vote, rather than procuring some dramatic swing in the polls.

Fifth, it wouldn't stop me voting for the Conservative Party - as I believe some degree of privatisation can be a wholly positive development. So, whilst Corbyn is religiously against the very concept, I welcome his NHS release today.

Bannasidhe

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is an identical problem with both main parties in Westminster. Splits and divisions within their own ranks that makes them incapable of looking outside their own navels.

Indeed, SKY News reported this morning on traditional Tory voters who are very angry heckling Raab and stated they agree with Heseltine and will not vote Conservative.

https://news.sky.com/video/raab-heckled-at-hustings-event-11871421


A former high ranking Tory resigns and is urging people to vote Labour

Dr Jason Aldiss resigned from his post as chair of the Pudsey Conservative Association shortly after Boris Johnson was elected as prime minister in July.

He said that his "blood ran blue" since he joined in 1995, but said his love for his country outweighed his loyalty to the Tories.

At the time of his resignation he wrote: "Unlike some very senior Conservatives who have buried their true feelings in the hope of preferment under prime minister Johnson, I can no longer defend this misguided, dysfunctional, disingenuous obliteration of years of hard work.

"I am left with no option but to resign."

Now Aldiss is voting tactically for Labour - and is encouraging others to follow suit.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jason-aldiss-pudsey-conservative-association-says-vote-labour-1-6368217

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I do.

As Andrew Neil has pointed out, as generic drugs are cheaper in the US - and as most drugs used in the UK are generic - any higher cost drugs are in the very minority, so let's put that fact in perspective.

Assuming there isn't a deal done regarding the NHS having restricted access to or use of generics which is very possible

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of large scale privatisation, that is fear mongering and I personally do not believe it will happen on some large scale. It's electoral spin.

So just your personal opinion gotcha, youve read the 451 pages and are aware of Trumps previous comments regarding the NHS?

Deleted User wrote: »

Third, I don't think this will sway Brexit voters who want to Get Brexit Done.

Fourth, it will only reinforce the Labour vote, rather than procuring some dramatic swing in the polls.

Unfortunately I would agree with this being a likely outcome.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fifth, it wouldn't stop me voting for the Conservative Party - as I believe some degree of privatisation can be a wholly positive development. So, whilst Corbyn is religiously against the very concept, I welcome his NHS release today.

Are you aware of the state of the american healthcare system re costs, like 50k to have a child, and the extremely disadvantaged position the UK is negotiating from outside of the EU, there won't just be a small level of privatisation if the US get access.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that:

• Ed Miliband didn't have a dubious history of flirting with extreme anti-Semites.
• Ed Miliband didn't have an anti-Semitism crisis within the party.

In other words, this is a different election and Jewish voters have different reasons for opposing Corbyn.

It's amazing how the LP became a hotbed of institutionalised antisemitism in the last fours years.

The Jewish voters who are not going to vote for Corbyn were never going to vote for the LP and the Jewish voters who are socialist (there are many) were always going to vote Labour.

The undecided Jewish voters are looking at their community being used as a political football with disgust and they ain't blaming the LP.

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that:

• Ed Miliband didn't have a dubious history of flirting with extreme anti-Semites.
• Ed Miliband didn't have an anti-Semitism crisis within the party.

In other words, this is a different election and Jewish voters have different reasons for opposing Corbyn.

where is this anti semetism thing coming from?

by anti semites, do you mean people opposed to the state of Israel?

Fr Tod Umptious

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

I agree. I am not a labour supporter, but everyone I know in the UK, including myself will vote for Labour. The support on-line is electric.. the more the tory rags lie and Johnson blusters, the less people believe it. It's great to see people waking up to the disaster of the tory reign at long last.

And with all due respect to this poster are you sure you are not seeing all this from your own filter bubble ?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I do.

As Andrew Neil has pointed out, as generic drugs are cheaper in the US - and as most drugs used in the UK are generic - any higher cost drugs are in the very minority, so let's put that fact in perspective.

In terms of large scale privatisation, that is fear mongering and I personally do not believe it will happen on some large scale. It's electoral spin.

Third, I don't think this will sway Brexit voters who want to Get Brexit Done.

Fourth, it will only reinforce the Labour vote, rather than procuring some dramatic swing in the polls.

Fifth, it wouldn't stop me voting for the Conservative Party - as I believe some degree of privatisation can be a wholly positive development. So, whilst Corbyn is religiously against the very concept, I welcome his NHS release today.

So you are happy with small scale privatisation but think there will be no large scale. Do you have a cut off point? Do you know when the line might be crossed? Johnson has repeatedly stated that the NHS is not on the table on trade talks, so no privatisation with US companies on that basis.

bren2001

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And with all due respect to this poster are you sure you are not seeing all this from your own filter bubble ?

I think it does depend on what sites you frequent. However, in the recent YouGov poll 59% of 18-24 year olds and 40% of 24-49 year olds intend to vote for Labour. The figures are 11 and 34 for the Tories respectively. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people on the internet are in the 18-49 age bracket. I don't think it's a wild statement to say the support online is heavily skewed towards the LP.

I do agree though, it is an important distinction that only a certain demographic are captured online. Online is also a bit of an echo chamber.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are happy with small scale privatisation but think there will be no large scale. Do you have a cut off point? Do you know when the line might be crossed? Johnson has repeatedly stated that the NHS is not on the table on trade talks, so no privatisation with US companies on that basis.

It's not for me to say, I'm not a UK citizen.

Second, generic drugs in the UK are 400% above the median cost, compared to just 100% in the United States.

So, the claim that the NHS bill rises if a deal is done on generic drugs is absurd.

If Johnson wins and some degree of privatisation takes place, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. "Privatisation" is not a dirty word; it can be done in a positive or negative way, depending on the strategy deployed. Furthermore, the idea that Johnson will privatise 60+% of the NHS or some mad figure during his 5-year term is nuts.

A Labour Government could come back after him and do as they wish with the NHS, though it was Labour itself that introduced privatisation via the PFI deals.

In either event, it's just maniacal speculation to suggest that large-scale privatisation will take place in a 5-year Tory term.

You may argue that's "just my opinion" - and that's true, and I think it's a more likely outcome than the scare stories. But if I were a Labour voter, I would play up these fears too, in order to secure further support. But I'm not a Labour voter - doesn't mean I can't appreciate what the electoral strategy is.

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And with all due respect to this poster are you sure you are not seeing all this from your own filter bubble ?

Yeah while i do think the polls are not accounting correctly for the newly registered youth vote i think its still pretty close and calling online support as a whole "electric" for labour screams of someone sitting in their own echo chamber

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

A Labour Government could come back after him and do as they wish with the NHS, though it was Labour itself that introduced privatisation via the PFI deals.

Not without absolutely sundering an entire trade deal, that the NHS was only 1 part of, with what would then be very likely their largest trade partner.

You still do not seem to understand how international trade deals operate....

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Not without absolutely sundering an entire trade deal, that the NHS was only 1 part of, with what would then be very likely their largest trade partner.

You still do not seem to understand how international trade deals operate....

But I don't believe a large scale trade deal, with the NHS permanently "up for sale" and en-masse privatisation will take place, so yes, the NHS is entirely within the scope of the next Labour Government that may begin in 2024.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

But I don't believe a large scale trade deal, with the NHS permanently "up for sale" and en-masse privatisation will take place, so yes, the NHS is entirely within the scope of the next Labour Government that may begin in 2024.

Well the documents published today disagree with you so your beliefs aren't backed up by anything except words by two well documented liars

prawnsambo

beggars_bush wrote: »

where is this anti semetism thing coming from?

by anti semites, do you mean people opposed to the state of Israel?

That's actually anti-semitic. It's quite acceptable, normal and even shared by Israeli citizens, to be opposed to the government of Israel or their policies etc. Being opposed to the state is to question its right to exist, which is anti-semitic.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Well the documents published today disagree with you so your beliefs aren't backed up by anything except words by two well documented liars

So, what is your belief, that large-scale privatisation will take place?

Willing to put a % on it?

90%?

75%

10%?

Do you seriously, seriously believe that in 5-years' time, the NHS will not be free at the point of delivery but will, instead, become something akin to the US model?

In 5 short years, really?

Fr Tod Umptious

bren2001 wrote: »

I think it does depend on what sites you frequent. However, in the recent YouGov poll 59% of 18-24 year olds and 40% of 24-49 year olds intend to vote for Labour. The figures are 11 and 34 for the Tories respectively. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people on the internet are in the 18-49 age bracket. I don't think it's a wild statement to say the support online is heavily skewed towards the LP.

I do agree though, it is an important distinction that only a certain demographic are captured online. Online is also a bit of an echo chamber.

Yes that's what I was getting at
While online would certainly reflect one demographic better than another that reflection cannot be extrapolated when talking about the overall electorate.

It's something like the 2015 general election poll miss.
Here is a good short explanation from The Guardian.
Note what the piece says about young voters also.
It's well established in many democracies that younger voters turn out in smaller numbers than older ones.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/why-the-opinion-polls-were-wrong-in-the-2015-general-election

.... the 2015 polling miss and not people lying to pollsters or changing their minds at the last minute. In short, pollsters did not contact enough people from hard-to-reach groups that do not vote in elections. Though these non-voters do not affect the votes cast in the election, their absence from polls has an important consequence: by weighting samples to look like the population as a whole and not just those who vote, pollsters ended up over-counting the voting intentions of those who demographically resembled the missing non-voters. These voters were Labour-leaning in 2015 – for example, those under the age of 25, who turned out in low numbers but were likely to support Labour when they did. By including too many of these voters in their samples, pollsters inflated Labour’s apparent support in 2015....

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's actually anti-semitic. It's quite acceptable, normal and even shared by Israeli citizens, to be opposed to the government of Israel or their policies etc. Being opposed to the state is to question its right to exist, which is anti-semitic.

I'm opposed to the country of China, do you infer from that statement that i believe the country of china should not exist?

When someone says the are opposed to the State/Country of "insert country name" its quite well accepted they mean their actions or policies and not their literal existence, this is kind of unique when it comes to israel and shows the strange automatic reaction some people might have to automatically jump to the anti-semitic claims regarding anything to do with Israel when its nothing of the sort.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Second, generic drugs in the UK are 400% above the median cost, compared to just 100% in the United States.

So, the claim that the NHS bill rises if a deal is done on generic drugs is absurd.

It's not, that's a select study which only looks a at 13 of the 1000s of drugs.

Overall drugs in the US (both branded and generic) are dearer than in the UK, also note the definition of branded from that study:-

Branded medicines may be the original medicine developed by a company or several companies may make the same generic medicine, to which each company gives its own brand name

Generic is a very generic thing, it relates to the International Nonproprietary Name categorisations, not necessarily brands of drugs.