General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

A few notes I took down from the C4 Dispatches programme on child poverty on Monday night:

Children's life expectancy in UK has gone down since 2011

Half a million children pushed into poverty over the last five years

£150m of debt because families can't cover the cost of funerals

A woman on the Dispatches programme was contracted to 16 hours a week work, her income is topped up by universal credit, but under the current system, if she works overtime, for every one pound she earns, after deductions, she only earns 37p – because the more she worked, the more was being taken off her universal credit

The Resolution foundation, an independent think tank, predicts child poverty to keep rising – if so, another million children are projected to be growing up in poverty by 2023


How can anybody stand over this record?

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

Take Kensington for example. It was a Tory - Labour contest which Labour won by just 20 votes at the last election. Since that election Grenfell happened in that constituency, something which would surely have shored up the anti-Tory vote. Additionally, it is a remain leaning constituency and since 2017 Labour have moved to a more remain stance while the Conservatives have moved to a more extreme Brexit stance.

However, the Lib Dems have decided to parachute in Sam Gamiyah, one of their high profile defectors who was sure to lose in his previous constituency, and focussed heavily on campaigning there, to the extent that it now looks like the Tories are going to walk it while Labour and Libs get 20-30% each. Some tactical vote sites are recommending Labour and some are recommending Lib.

This makes tactical voting difficult in a number of constituencies, and really it would be much more reliable to base decisions on the 2017 results. The reality is that there are 50-60 seats where SNP makes sense, 20-30 seats where Lib Dems make sense, and 500+ seats where Labour makes sense.

Basing voting on the 2017 results would be nonsensical. So much has changed in the meantime, the only solid conclusion you could possibly make on those results would be in safe seats. And even that would be a stretch in some cases. Polling data makes that clear. Your example of Kensington being a case in point. Labour won that seat in 2017 by a mere 20 votes. LD had one quarter of that. But polling is now putting LD ahead of Labour, the YouGov MRP giving them at least a 3% lead on labour. That's a massive change.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Really wondering how its going to go for swinson on with neil later. You'd feel he could really go to town if he wanted to but there's a sense of low hanging fruit with it and with johnson still not confirming, an overly hostile approach from neil could attract more criticism for the broadcaster. I guess swinson could surprise us with a spirited performance too though i do doubt that somewhat.

I don't think Neil cares about Swinson or Johnson or anyone else.

He cares about the truth. And that's what he should focus on tonight.

Letwin_Larry

Trump on the way back to the States. No press conference.
Good news for Boris. Successful conference all round.

dont think Corbyn got to meet Donald. next time perhaps.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

Basing voting on the 2017 results would be nonsensical. So much has changed in the meantime, the only solid conclusion you could possibly make on those results would be in safe seats. And even that would be a stretch in some cases. Polling data makes that clear. Your example of Kensington being a case in point. Labour won that seat in 2017 by a mere 20 votes. LD had one quarter of that. But polling is now putting LD ahead of Labour, the YouGov MRP giving them at least a 3% lead on labour. That's a massive change.

Other polls give Labour a lead, and the actual vote that happened 2 years ago had Labour on more than 4 times as many votes as the Lib Dems. If you look at some of the tactical vote aggregator sites, you'll see that most tactical vote sites say to vote Labour but some say to vote Lib Dem. By splitting the tactical vote it's a guaranteed Tory victory (which it effectively is at this point) - if the tactical vote was based on a single indisputable source of truth this wouldn't be a problem.

IAmTheReign

Aegir wrote: »

you could as easily claim that Labour have a lot more negative issues to deal with.

The "make your own pharma" policy has been pretty much taken apart on here. If the media do it, are they biased or is it just an analysis of the manifesto?

sooner or later, labour supporters are going to have to face the reality that Labour are pretty much ****ing this up for themselves and blaming the media is just hiding the fact that they currently have a leader who just isn't cutting it.

If you want to make the claim that Labou have more negative issues to deal with than the Torys at least back it up with something. The "make your own pharma" policy is no more a fantasy than '40 new hospitals'. Tory manifesto plans to hire more nurses and police only barely brings staffing levels back to pre recession levels. Considering they're the ones who gutted services in the first place I would expert them to get for more negative press over it.

IAmTheReign

IAmTheReign wrote: »

If you want to make the claim that Labou have more negative issues to deal with than the Torys at least back it up with something.

There's a simple answer to that: the polls.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

Other polls give Labour a lead, and the actual vote that happened 2 years ago had Labour on more than 4 times as many votes as the Lib Dems. If you look at some of the tactical vote aggregator sites, you'll see that most tactical vote sites say to vote Labour but some say to vote Lib Dem. By splitting the tactical vote it's a guaranteed Tory victory (which it effectively is at this point) - if the tactical vote was based on a single indisputable source of truth this wouldn't be a problem.

I already gave the outcome of the 2017 election. Not sure why you felt it needed repeating. Unless to bolster the argument that those figures are next to useless now? Two tactical voting sites says Labour, one says LD and two have no recommendation. Yes, it's close. Which is the point I was making. That the actual situation now is worlds apart from how it pertained in 2017. Looking for a single indisputable source of truth in a pre-election melting pot is wishful thinking. You have to go by what polls and poll aggregators are saying, and the more data you have, the better. Looking back to 2017 is pointless.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

So you didn't deal with the Loughborough University statistics and tried to deflect onto something else, thanks for that.

I thought I did deal with it.

A negative report in the press doesn’t necessarily mean a biased media, it could simply be an accurate reflection of a crap policy, which is why I mentioned the pharma one.

I would expect the BNP to get plenty of negative press. That doesn’t mean the media are biased, just pulling apart their policies or practices.

Your problem, is you believe the sun goes in every time Jeremy Corbyn pulls his trousers up, so you consider any negativity to be unfair, when it may not be.

IAmTheReign

IAmTheReign wrote: »

If you want to make the claim that Labou have more negative issues to deal with than the Torys at least back it up with something. The "make your own pharma" policy is no more a fantasy than '40 new hospitals'. Tory manifesto plans to hire more nurses and police only barely brings staffing levels back to pre recession levels. Considering they're the ones who gutted services in the first place I would expert them to get for more negative press over it.

40 new hospitals is an aspiration, as is extra staffing. You can argue whether or not these will ever happen, but Corbyns pharma one is just bat**** crazy.

prawnsambo

Aegir wrote: »

40 new hospitals is an aspiration, as is extra staffing. You can argue whether or not these will ever happen, but Corbyns pharma one is just bat**** crazy.

Well it's actually just a lie. I suppose we're in that place where a blatant lie has more value than a pipe dream.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

40 new hospitals is an aspiration, as is extra staffing. You can argue whether or not these will ever happen, but Corbyns pharma one is just bat**** crazy.

I assume you've read all 42 pages of detailed, evidence based, fully cited proposals that make up this policy and you haven't dismissed it out of hand based on something you read in the media that you're sure isn't biased?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think Neil cares about Swinson or Johnson or anyone else.

He cares about the truth. And that's what he should focus on tonight.

Did neil care about the truth when he was constantly barracking Carole cadwalladr over her accurate CA reporting and tweeting abuse to her? Anyway, I'm sure he'll focus on the truth against swinson tonight and one of the consequences will be renewed focus on your man johnson for his ducking out of it.

Also, do you think neils employers lied to other parties about having all leaders signed up for the interviews? As a truthseeker should neil have any issue with that?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it's actually just a lie. I suppose we're in that place where a blatant lie has more value than a pipe dream.

Or, it's a strategic technique to get the population talking about the fact that "Johnson" and "building new hospitals" are one and the same; irrespective of whether it's 20 new hospitals or 40 new hospitals.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

I assume you've read all 42 pages of detailed, evidence based, fully cited proposals that make up this policy and you haven't dismissed it out of hand based on something you read in the media that you're sure isn't biased?

nope, I used my own common sense and evaluated it for myself.

Which is what any sensible voter should do.

fiveleavesleft

sid waddell wrote: »

A few notes I took down from the C4 Dispatches programme on child poverty on Monday night:

Children's life expectancy in UK has gone down since 2011

Half a million children pushed into poverty over the last five years

£150m of debt because families can't cover the cost of funerals

A woman on the Dispatches programme was contracted to 16 hours a week work, her income is topped up by universal credit, but under the current system, if she works overtime, for every one pound she earns, after deductions, she only earns 37p – because the more she worked, the more was being taken off her universal credit

The Resolution foundation, an independent think tank, predicts child poverty to keep rising – if so, another million children are projected to be growing up in poverty by 2023


How can anybody stand over this record?

Wait till the Tories hear about this! They will be enraged. I remember how they shamed Labour during the Winter of Discontent because families couldn't bury their loved ones & that was only one winter!. Since 2011 you say, oh Tories are going to make hay with this.;)

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

I assume you've read all 42 pages of detailed, evidence based, fully cited proposals that make up this policy and you haven't dismissed it out of hand based on something you read in the media that you're sure isn't biased?

Sure reading is overrated activity imo. Look at raab, didnt even need to read the GFA to have a handle on the whole thing. Good old fashioned Jacob Rees Mogg common sense is where its at these days.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

nope, I used my own common sense and evaluated it for myself.

Which is what any sensible voter should do.

You evaluated something without finding out what it actually is first? Interesting approach.

I'm not saying it's definitely going to work but it's not some crazy fantasy like you're trying to portray. For example, one of the programs it cites as a model for how it could work is actually a private initiative in the US where over 500 private hospitals grouped together and started up a pharma company to manufacture drugs and save themselves money on purchasing from other suppliers. Doesn't seem wildly implausable for the NHS to achieve something similar.

This is the scheme by the way: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/hospitals-band-together-to-make-drugs-to-combat-shortages-high-prices.html

There were other examples but I thought the example of a group of American Private hospitals might stop the reflex reaction of screaming that it's communism.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sure reading is overrated activity imo. Look at raab, didnt even need to read the GFA to have a handle on the whole thing. Good old fashioned Jacob Rees Mogg common sense is where its at these days.

As a policy, it makes no sense to me. The cost of generics is relatively small in comparison to newly patented treatments. And that's mainly because of the high cost and long duration of pharmaceutical R&D. The best way to cut the cost of drugs is to invest in R&D and take a share in the dividends when new drugs are formulated. And those dividends can be used to subsidise the cost of all drugs to the NHS.

sid waddell

Aegir wrote: »

I thought I did deal with it.

A negative report in the press doesn’t necessarily mean a biased media, it could simply be an accurate reflection of a crap policy, which is why I mentioned the pharma one.

I would expect the BNP to get plenty of negative press. That doesn’t mean the media are biased, just pulling apart their policies or practices.

Your problem, is you believe the sun goes in every time Jeremy Corbyn pulls his trousers up, so you consider any negativity to be unfair, when it may not be.

Or it could be a statement of the bleedin' obvious - that the majority of the UK press is hysterically biased towards the Tories and are an industrial strength propaganda and bull**** machine which is an active agent in manipulating public opinion to support the Tories at all costs.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Or it could be a statement of the bleedin' obvious - that the majority of the UK press is hysterically biased towards the Tories and are an industrial strength propaganda and bull**** machine which is an active agent in manipulating public opinion to support the Tories at all costs.

If the statistics were the other way around, would you now be complaining on these fora that there is a systemic bias toward Labour and it must be stopped?

I seriously doubt it. :rolleyes:

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

If the statistics were the other way around, would you now be complaining on these fora that there is a systemic bias toward Labour and it must be stopped?

I seriously doubt it. :rolleyes:

But they're not the other way 'round. This is the reality.
There's a clear bias against Labour.

We get it, you're the second coming of Ayn Rand.

Stop turning everything around to an anti-Labour stance to suit your agenda.

It's beyond tiresome at this stage.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If the statistics were the other way around, would you now be complaining on these fora that there is a systemic bias toward Labour and it must be stopped?

I seriously doubt it. :rolleyes:

You're not denying it so. That seems like progress anyway.

An Ciarraioch

What is a significant blow to Labour, however, is that the New Statesman, the best-selling centre-left political magazine in the UK, has refused to endorse it:

https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1202213945475514368

CelticRambler

Accidentally catching Johnson's press conference at NATO earlier, I was struck by one particular aspect of this election: Johnson appears to have completely written off both the DUP and the Lib Dems as potential king-makers - he is 100% committed to the idea of the next government (or oppostion) being a Labour-SNP coalition. In itself, that has to be seen an incredible success for Scotland, and it's almost disappointing that the SNP didn't decide to field candidates south of the border!

quokula

So former Conservative prime minister John Major launched a scathing attack on Boris Johnson this morning, and former Labour backbencher Ivan Lewis who holds a grudge after being suspended from the party for sexual harassment launched an attack against Corbyn this afternoon.

I wonder which will get more coverage in the media...

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You're not denying it so. That seems like progress anyway.

Personally, I don't think there's an effective bias. Perhaps statistically, but I'd need to dissect the research for myself. For what I see, there is more negative aspects of a Labour campaign and so I don't necessarily think it's the media's fault given they have so much more meat to handle compared to the Tories.

Furthermore, I asked that question rhetorically to show that, if indeed the bias was on the other foot, I seriously doubt that posters on here would be complaining that Labour have received too much media bias and that the Tories should have their fair share.

Is anyone willing to admit that they would not be reacting in the same way if the bias was on the other foot?

If that is so, then your problem isn't with the bias, it's the fact you don't have it.

And hypocrisy that makes the situation.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think Neil cares about Swinson or Johnson or anyone else.

He cares about the truth. And that's what he should focus on tonight.

Neil does not care about the truth, he cares about bombarding the interviewee with questions to catch them out. He peddles mistruths masquerading as questions

quokula

CelticRambler wrote: »

Accidentally catching Johnson's press conference at NATO earlier, I was struck by one particular aspect of this election: Johnson appears to have completely written off both the DUP and the Lib Dems as potential king-makers - he is 100% committed to the idea of the next government (or oppostion) being a Labour-SNP coalition. In itself, that has to be seen an incredible success for Scotland, and it's almost disappointing that the SNP didn't decide to field candidates south of the border!

I think it's more that the SNP are bogeymen for the English nationalist type voters the Tories are chasing. The Lib Dems are just as likely to prop up the Tories as they are Labour, and their policies barely differ from the conservatives, so they don't hold the same fear factor. The Tories ran exactly the same campaign in 2015, remember the posters with Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond's pocket?

As for the DUP, they like all Northern Irish parties have always been ignored in British politics, it was a very specific turn of events that put them in that position in 2017 and nobody would predict it happening again.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

What is a significant blow to Labour, however, is that the New Statesman, the best-selling centre-left political magazine in the UK, has refused to endorse it:

https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1202213945475514368

I like new statesman but its a publication with circulation figure of around 40,000 so i wouldnt be too concerned by it from a labour perspective. Think it was against them last time too, or corbyn at least so its not entirely unexpected i would think. Interested to know whether FT has rowed in behind johnson or is finally getting cold feet.