UK Politics: Spaffed up the wall while chuntering from a sedentary position

[Chaircat Meow]

ICM.

This is the first poll in a while to show the Tory lead small enough to fall in 'the danger zone' i.e. the lead is small enough a hung Parliament could be the result. Also, a second poll from YouGov out today showed Labour back with a healthy(ish) lead over the Tories in Wales, which they really need. 

Westminster voting intention: CON: 41% (-1)

LAB: 34% (+2)

LDEM: 13% (-)

BREX: 4% (-1)

via @ICMResearch, 22 - 25 Nov Chgs. w/ 18 Nov

[Ser Hedge]

3 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

ICM.

This is the first poll in a while to show the Tory lead small enough to fall in 'the danger zone' i.e. the lead is small enough a hung Parliament could be the result. Also, a second poll from YouGov out today showed Labour back with a healthy(ish) lead over the Tories in Wales, which they really need. 

Westminster voting intention: CON: 41% (-1)

LAB: 34% (+2)

LDEM: 13% (-)

BREX: 4% (-1)

via @ICMResearch, 22 - 25 Nov Chgs. w/ 18 Nov

Labour are not out of it (as a hung parliament is probably what they are aiming for)  especially with a reported 1.86million of the 2.8million new registrations under the age of 35. I don't know about this ICM/Reuters poll, but you have to think a lot of pollsters may not be weighting adequately in favour of these newly registered youth voters.

Jo Swinson did not come across well in Friday's QT even if the Sheffield crowd were not representative of Lib Dem/Tory marginals, so a further collapse in LibDem support in seats where they are #3 is not unlikely helping Labour in Tory/Labour Remain marginals. And finally, free stuff works and despite the new hospitals and more nurses and police the Tories might have lost the spin battle as Sajid has (responsibly) held his ground vs the strategists and populists who wanted to cut taxes and put money in people's pockets.
 

The beauty is Labour can just keep adding to the freebies every day (as with the women's pension reform announced well after the manifesto, probably in response to the first QT question to Boris and ironically answered truthfully "We looked at at and looked at it and looked it and really want to help, but there is no money we can magic up") as they will be in a coalition and don't need to deliver all of it. Of course, Cameron thought he was playing the same game in '15 with the referendum and we know what happened there, let's hope that doesn't happen again.
 

[Which Tyler]

This seems familiar from a recent discussion here:

 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Ser Hedge said:

The beauty is Labour can just keep adding to the freebies every day (as with the women's pension reform announced well after the manifesto, probably in response to the first QT question to Boris and ironically answered truthfully "We looked at at and looked at it and looked it and really want to help, but there is no money we can magic up") as they will be in a coalition and don't need to deliver all of it. Of course, Cameron thought he was playing the same game in '15 with the referendum and we know what happened there, let's hope that doesn't happen again.

True to some extent. Cameron didn't expect to win an outright majority in 2015 and I suspect if he had suspected that, he would have not put the EU referendum in the manifesto. Once he did that, he was fucked.

Labour's position is different in that they will certainly deliver those promises if they win outright (unlikely on current polling), but they will also trigger increased income as well. Nationalising the rail service means the money that commuters spend can therefore 100% go back into the service rather than a huge chunk going off to shareholders in other countries (most of the current rail franchise holders are based abroad, including rail services in Germany and the Netherlands). That's true right across the board: a lot of Labour policies will cost more than Tory policies (which seem to be mostly promises to slightly unfuck things they massively fucked up starting in 2010, but not fully unfucking them), but will also result in money staying within the UK and capital being allowed to move around rather than being locked or sent offshore. The Tories either have a poor understanding of macroeconomics or just pretend they don't understand it so they can continue withholding vital funding from important services.

Labour also have wriggle-room as their non-manifesto commitments can be spread over a longer period of time than just one Parliament (like the four-day week idea), so won't need to be delivered at once.

[Ser Hedge]

27 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Labour's position is different in that they will certainly deliver those promises if they win outright (unlikely on current polling), but they will also trigger increased income as well

You raise a good point about shareholder dividends. While historically in countries where large sectors of the economy have been run by the state service standards tend to drop as the concept of customer focus just dissipates, let's say that won't be the case here and the new state rail  and utility companies provide a service closer to the better run councils or government government departments than the worse ones. I'd  still  be very curious about other policies though:

Where is the money for the WASPI pensions going to come from and why does such an announcement with a huge cost appear out of nowhere days after the manifesto launch? Sure, it's a debt of honour, but there are debts of honour that can be paid to commonwealth countries, Ireland, Denmark (for bombing them in the Napoleonic wars even though they hadn't even picked Napoleon's side, but merely had a navy that Napoleon might capture), the entire Middle East for all the lines lazily drawn on maps creating conflicts to the present day, every descendant of slavery, China (for the opium wars) ...... let's face it we can only be honourable within our means or in manageable installments.

On Broadband, I agree the whole country should have the access to broadband or at least a high quality 4G mobile data connection. If private companies have not built the infrastructure in some parts of the country, the government should do it or pay them to do it. Those who cannot afford it should have a free or subsidized connection provided, that's fair. Also the training and help they need so they can use it properly. If this is what is being addressed that works be fine. But free broadband for everybody??? Even the 46% households who anyway have ultrafast broadband already? Even those who have access to one, can afford it, but have decided their 4G plan with 100GB data is so good they don't need optic fibre broadband?

What kind of lunatic comes up with this idea? Oh, I do hate it when my provider jacks up the charge during and often right after I've taken out a new contract. Address these sharp practices by all means, but abolishing all of them and replacing themwith a state monolith is a business model the East bloc have already tried and discarded. Keeping the dividends in the UK is not going to help when productivity has dropped through the floor (which will happen when  most industries are owned by the government and the better run multinationals flee other sectors as well fearing expropriation).

The one radical idea I do wish the Kommunisticheskiy Soyuz Molodyozhi Laboursheviks would adopt is to seize some land from ultra large hereditary free holders like the Duke of Westminster, the Saxe-Coburg und Gothas and the tiny handful of families that own 99% of Scotland or whatever the statistic is. That I can competely get behind. 

[felice]

7 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Those who cannot afford it should have a free or subsidized connection provided, that's fair. Also the training and help they need so they can use it properly. If this is what is being addressed that works be fine. But free broadband for everybody??? Even the 46% households who anyway have ultrafast broadband already?

It's a net* saving for society if broadband is just automatically available for everyone, and there's no need for individuals to waste time paying bills or negotiating the transition between eligible and ineligible for subsidies (people's financial situations change!), or for a bureaucracy to exist to keep track of all the payments and subsidies.

(* no pun intended )

7 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Even those who have access to one, can afford it, but have decided their 4G plan with 100GB data is so good they don't need optic fibre broadband?

I assume fibre installation won't take place anywhere without the consent of the residents.

[Ser Hedge]

3 hours ago, felice said:

It's a net* saving for society if broadband is just automatically available for everyone, and there's no need for individuals to waste time paying bills or negotiating the transition between eligible and ineligible for subsidies (people's financial situations change!), or for a bureaucracy to exist to keep track of all the payments and subsidies.

 (* no pun intended )

If you are designing the system from scratch, for sure.

The below quote is from Ofcom:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/130736/Connected-Nations-2018-main-report.pdf

Quote

Broadband coverage continues to improve, with superfast broadband now at 94%
This year has seen continued investment in faster broadband, with 94% of premises now able to access superfast broadband with a download speed of at least 30 Mbit/s. This is up from 91% in 2017. Coverage for small businesses is now at 90%. In April we reported that the UK Government had met its target of 95% coverage for superfast broadband, with this target based on a download speed of at least 24 Mbit/s.5 Coverage of ultrafast broadband, with download speeds of at least 300 Mbit/s, has also increased from 36% of premises in 2017 to 50% this year.

When so many people already have potential access to fast broadband that many are paying for already, why make it free for those that are paying for it already and lose the benefits of good service that only comes with competition? A single operator is guaranteed to give you lousy service.

This policy is not really designed to help the rural population (for whom I would gladly pay a surcharge on top of my regular bill to ensure the elderly in the Outer Hebrides or school children on the Orkney Islands have the same access as everybody else), it's a gimmicky freebee for for a particular demographic voter group, who can already afford basic internet, but would just love to have unlimited data for free at super fast speed. I have this feeling they won't be spending it on www.gov.uk.

If you want a real revolution, go after these guys

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

Take 25% of everybody's holding above a certain (very high) ceiling, sell it or lease it, invest in a sovereign wealth fund like Norway's, use the investment income to get the homeless off the streets, children out of poverty, invest in roads, rail, broadband/4G in places that don't have them, invest in green energy, pay the WASPI pension by all means, in fact pay every adult and child in the UK an Andrew Yang-style basic income, no need for benefits or pensions at all. All the bureaucracy simplified.

The ultra-large landowners won't like it, but what are they going to do? Leave? Please, after you. All these other muddled half-thought-out policies will just result in valuable tax payers leaving and companies under investing. Confiscating a bit from aristos who won't even miss it, is less likely to have that effect when the process is handled very sensibly. In fact you can probably cut income tax and corporation tax while at it! 

 

[mormont]

28 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

lose the benefits of good service that only comes with competition?

What are these benefits, please?

And what is this competition? You understand that for many customers, they don't have either good service or competition? 

While you're at it, please explain with reference to actual evidence not anecdote how it is that only competition can result in good service. Is there no good service in any type of public provision at all? The logic of your claim here suggests that everything should be privatised and opened up to competition. Health, education, the lot. It's pure Thatcherism. 

[SeanF]

22 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

ICM.

This is the first poll in a while to show the Tory lead small enough to fall in 'the danger zone' i.e. the lead is small enough a hung Parliament could be the result. Also, a second poll from YouGov out today showed Labour back with a healthy(ish) lead over the Tories in Wales, which they really need. 

Westminster voting intention: CON: 41% (-1)

LAB: 34% (+2)

LDEM: 13% (-)

BREX: 4% (-1)

via @ICMResearch, 22 - 25 Nov Chgs. w/ 18 Nov

The 19% lead is an outlier.  The Welsh poll suggests a Conservative lead of 11-12%, which is also what Survation and Kantar TNS have reported.

The latest YouGov also has an 11% lead, 43./32/13/4.

[Ser Hedge]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

And what is this competition? You understand that for many customers, they don't have either good service or competition? 

I'm all for providing customers who for geographical reasons have no service with a tax payer financed service, because that's fair and we are one country and no one should be left behind. Maybe the best solution for some cases may not be optical fibre, but 4G - I don't know, it should be analyzed and done sensibly. If access is available, but people cannot afford it, they should be encouraged financially o and with training to obtain access to the internet and use it for online payments and other usage which many of us take for granted. The bureaucracy you deal with this already exists in the form of the benefit system. If the clerks administrating benefits are apathetic to human suffering, turf them out and reform the department. There is zero reason to nationalize everything willy nilly because you can't be bothered to sweat the details. At the same time, nationalizing essential services that are not working should always be on the table. If a particular rail operator or energy utility is found a terrible job, take over just that particular company into public ownership (and watch the others suddenly become much better!)

The Tories do not exercise their power to regulate at all (because their corrupt friends are running them), while this current version of Labour want to throw the baby out with the bathwater completely  Just change the bathwater! Oh, wait that's not a vote winner.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

there if very little completion for broad band or even home phone in this country.

It comes down to Cable (virgin) if you live in the right area.

BT

rent access to BT line via another phone company.

 

If you have a fault on the line its BT that fix it, and if you get shit service because of crappy lines where do you go?

If BT hike the prices of the line  (not the usage)  this effect everyone not in a cable area.  you can't switch.  since there is no competition all the alleged advantages of having private sector completion keeping prices low and service high is not there.

 

I think there is a good argument for the physical infrastructure to be provided and maintained by the state not BT.  the state can then lease the line to other operators and BT like BT does now.  They can then charge us in turn by how much we use.   or if its not financially worth it provide the use for free or a flat rate.

[Spockydog]

46 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Just change the bathwater! Oh, wait that's not a vote winner.

That's exactly what they are doing here.

Just to be clear, Corbyn has no plans to nationalize the commercial arm of BT. He intends to nationalisie BT Openreach, which was created to ensure Britain's digital infrastructure did not fall behind that of other nations. Incompetent and corrupt, they've done a terrible bloody job, and it's a brilliant idea to nationalise it.

 

[Spockydog]

35 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I think there is a good argument for the physical infrastructure to be provided and maintained by the state not BT.  the state can then lease the line to other operators and BT like BT does now.

That is the plan.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Ser Hedge said:

The bureaucracy you deal with this already exists in the form of the benefit system. If the clerks administrating benefits are apathetic to human suffering, turf them out and reform the department.

As someone who does deal with the benefit system, the problem in the benefit system lies with a, the private companies given contracts (for example who assess claimants' disabilities) and b, the target-driven ethos imported from private enterprise in the mistaken belief that private enterprise knows best. It's these aspects of the benefits system, not the public service element, that cause the heartache you're talking about.

Put it another way - if you think bureaucracy apathetic to human suffering is a characteristic of the public sector, not private enterprise, you're sorely mistaken. 

[Ser Hedge]

1 hour ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

If you have a fault on the line its BT that fix it, and if you get shit service because of crappy lines where do you go?

So in those places where there's a choice between BT's fixed line (with multiple operators in turn using that line - which at the least means you have multiple call centres dividing up user call traffic even if it's the same backbone line that has a fault, so at least shorter call waiting times) and Virgin with their own network, there's a reasonable level of service. e.g. my cable got damaged by some builders digging a new foundation at a neighbour's, Virgin shows up on the dot at the appointed time on a Saturday (no waiting all day like for the BG boiler engineer who might or might not show up because they are so busy) fixed it with no call out charge, no fuss. yes, there are all manners of sharp practices with pricing of course, but the threat of your ditching one spiv for the other does keep them in check. Just tell them you are leaving and they drop prices by 25-33%. If you have decent 4G reception, you do have the option of not taking out broadband at all. There are 100GB data packages that you can snag whenever there is a decent discount and you can share that data with your home devices, so you might not need broadband at all. You could spend less than £25 a month for all your phone and data needs this way.

I do understand that Virgin are present only in some areas, but if broadband is made free, they are surely exiting this business eventually and the prospect of their (or someone else) expanding to where you live is gone forever.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Put it another way - if you think bureaucracy apathetic to human suffering is a characteristic of the public sector, not private enterprise, you're sorely mistaken. 

No I don't think that, I was pre-empting someone going "Oh you think the guys administrating benefits are easy to deal with ?". If the private contractors are the problem, kick them out. All I meant is we need to make the benefits department work as intended and they can then take responsibility for providing financial aid for broadband for those not able to afford it. I'm not a fan of government contracting out basic services to contractors. There is always something that goes wrong there.

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

He intends to nationalisie BT Openreach, which was created to ensure Britain's digital infrastructure did not fall behind that of other nations. Incompetent and corrupt, they've done a terrible bloody job, and it's a brilliant idea to nationalise it.

That's fine. Just saying don't make it free! Let the Virgins co-exist with the BTs, O2s, Talk-Talk and whoever else uses OpenReach and they keep each other in check. The moment it's free,  you are back to a system of private contractors delivering services on behalf of the government that like @mormont says is a shit arrangement.

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

That's exactly what they are doing here.

Ha, no. The Tories might just be re-arranging a few chairs on the upper deck, while Corbyn wants to move a few chairs between decks. No one here is changing the course of the Titanic. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

You raise a good point about shareholder dividends. While historically in countries where large sectors of the economy have been run by the state service standards tend to drop as the concept of customer focus just dissipates, let's say that won't be the case here and the new state rail  and utility companies provide a service closer to the better run councils or government government departments than the worse ones. I'd  still  be very curious about other policies though: 

Correct me if I am wrong, but to mention the British Railroad's as a success story, that shows the superiority of free enterprise over state owned bureaucracy is pushing it.

Free enterprise operates on the profit motif. Which means unprofitable parts of business will be cut, to be more cost effective. With the railway this is relatively harmless - albeit annoying, if you happen to live in those forgotten lands with no real connection to the outside world - of course, you can say let private sector run the profitable and keep the unprofitable ones in the hands of the state, but what would be the point, so the free enterprise people can say, see how smooth and efficicent and profitable the things run in the hands of free enterprise? With other sectors, the profit motif is simply not fit for purpose. Just look at the privatization of prisons. And personally, I prefer to keep certain essential services in public hands. Water comes to mind.

Anyway, came here for somethign different.

Politics.co.uk has published their Remainer voting guide. By Jayanetti. Potential high profile scalps to go after. Redwood and Demonic Raab.

[Jen'ari]

30 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, came here for somethign different.

Politics.co.uk has published their Remainer voting guide. By Jayanetti. Potential high profile scalps to go after. Redwood and Demonic Raab.

I live in Raabs constituency and the Lib Dems have really been making an effort, I know it probably sounds slightly fickle but the fact Monica Harding has been out actively campaigning and engaging with voters meant a lot,she knocked on our door, was engaging and pleasant to talk to and was great with our toddler, as opposed to Raab who hasn't made an effort whatsoever and whos team has put a leaflet through the door about the importance of getting Brexit done.

[Chaircat Meow]

Supposedly Corbyn's interview with Andrew Neil went well … not. 

I won't be able to watch this; I doubt very much this will change anything but some have suggested it was so shatteringly bad it might. 

[The Anti-Targ]

12 hours ago, Jen'ari said:

I live in Raabs constituency and the Lib Dems have really been making an effort, I know it probably sounds slightly fickle but the fact Monica Harding has been out actively campaigning and engaging with voters meant a lot,she knocked on our door, was engaging and pleasant to talk to and was great with our toddler, as opposed to Raab who hasn't made an effort whatsoever and whos team has put a leaflet through the door about the importance of getting Brexit done.

They either know they've lost or won handily. So why go to any effort? They're not likely to be wrong about concluding they've already lost handily, but they might not have seen the way the wind if blowing within the electorate (looking instead at the national poll and just assuming that safe seat will fall into line) and might get surprised by imaging they already have a handy win.

[Which Tyler]

Entirely seperate from the previous points - this article is a couple of years old; but I've only just come across it - analysing the myth that conservatives are the fiscally responsible, whilst labour are fiscally untrustworthy (analysing stats for public borrowing, and payment of national debt since WWII):
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/