Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[Peppino Impastato]

2 minutes ago, harry94 said:

With the immediate challenges he faced, he handled things fairly well.  I don't think many people realise just how toothless the powers western governments actually had to stop the insane banking shitfest at that time. It was all about stimulus and he played this game very well, going back to 2001 well before the collapse actually happened.  A lot of idiots like to play the whole 'he should have collapsed the banks and re-regulated the economy' as if it wouldn't have plunged hundreds of thousands of people into poverty (which would have been loved by certain characters who would further consolidate their power in this way).

The worst thing he did in his career (and probably life) was his 'deal' with Blair. He ended up being duped into playing by his rules which haunted him badly when he become a PM in his own right.

Tbf he'd spent the preceding ten years championing toothless powers in the name of'light touch' regulation whilst chancellor.

[John Lambies Doos]

Gordon Brown [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[DrewDon]

I have more time for Brown than most, but there is no chance that he would achieve a General Election victory now - comfortably or otherwise. 

[harry94]

Just now, Peppino Impastato said:

Tbf he'd spent the preceding ten years championing toothless powers in the name of'light touch' regulation whilst chancellor.

There were HUGE lobbying interests against regulation that were at their peak in the late 90s/early 00s. The fact of the matter is that it was a race to the bottom and that reluctance to enforce parts of this agenda meant that jobs were lost overseas and a certain loss in the next election with opponents quite keen to even go much further with the crazy ideas. It's also the case that this was just really going with what was happening in the US (a government with considerable more weight) and it's severely doubtful that any legislation passed wouldn't have really changed the harsh reality that the UK would face in 08.

It's still a really contentious issue today with this whole righteous thought that we shouldn't be letting these industries get away with so much shite but the fact is that moves to the contrary do take an economic hit. The sensible way to enact change is to get really big scale agreements so that one economy isn't harmed disproportionately for the other, you can argue that he was the world leader in this area and forced as much as a UK PM could ever reasonably achieve. Someone like Corbyn may have great intentions and even a productive plan that could really protect the banks but the reality is that unless he's pretty much receiving unanimous domestic support AND there's been a similar movement within the EU and USA, he's going to set the movement back decades when he can't negotiate anything close to his plans and then gets branded as ineffective. 

One error I would say is that in the 2010 campaign, the incumbent government were scrutinised for their part in this and he made a huge strategic error in basically making a simplistic admission of guilt and saying Labour had failed to run the economy well. That admission hung Ed Miliband as well when in reality, the man and opposition team they lost to were pretty much running an agenda that took the bad parts of their previous policy and put them on stilts. They were scared to explain such a complex issue to the public but I do think they should have tried to fight their corner to articulate why they did certain things at times. Also not calling the election was another big mistake.

[Granny Danger]

2 hours ago, harry94 said:

I think Corbyn is a cool guy and would like a pint with him but it's absolutely embarrassing when you people like Seamus Milne in a real position of power in his team. The guys pretty much taking Kremlin talking points and regurgitating it in parliament today FFS.

I'm not taking the piss when I say that if Gordon Brown was still a backbencher, I think he'd be quite a credible candidate for the leadership and win a General Election very comfortably. That's saying quite a lot as well.

Yeah you are.

[Peppino Impastato]

19 minutes ago, harry94 said:

There were HUGE lobbying interests against regulation that were at their peak in the late 90s/early 00s. The fact of the matter is that it was a race to the bottom and that reluctance to enforce parts of this agenda meant that jobs were lost overseas and a certain loss in the next election with opponents quite keen to even go much further with the crazy ideas. It's also the case that this was just really going with what was happening in the US (a government with considerable more weight) and it's severely doubtful that any legislation passed wouldn't have really changed the harsh reality that the UK would face in 08.

It's still a really contentious issue today with this whole righteous thought that we shouldn't be letting these industries get away with so much shite but the fact is that moves to the contrary do take an economic hit. The sensible way to enact change is to get really big scale agreements so that one economy isn't harmed disproportionately for the other, you can argue that he was the world leader in this area and forced as much as a UK PM could ever reasonably achieve. Someone like Corbyn may have great intentions and even a productive plan that could really protect the banks but the reality is that unless he's pretty much receiving unanimous domestic support AND there's been a similar movement within the EU and USA, he's going to set the movement back decades when he can't negotiate anything close to his plans and then gets branded as ineffective. 

One error I would say is that in the 2010 campaign, the incumbent government were scrutinised for their part in this and he made a huge strategic error in basically making a simplistic admission of guilt and saying Labour had failed to run the economy well. That admission hung Ed Miliband as well when in reality, the man and opposition team they lost to were pretty much running an agenda that took the bad parts of their previous policy and put them on stilts. They were scared to explain such a complex issue to the public but I do think they should have tried to fight their corner to articulate why they did certain things at times. Also not calling the election was another big mistake.

Interesting.  Presumably all developed economies pursued the same path then and suffered the same consequences?  Like Canada and Australia for example?

[PB 4.2]

Independence at 48%.   

SNP gaining 3% of last Mori poll. 
Tories losing nearly 10% of vote.   

And Gordon Brown becomes the one-eyed deflection squirrel. 
 

[harry94]

Just now, Peppino Impastato said:

Interesting.  Presumably all developed economies pursued the same path then and suffered the same consequences?  Like Canada and Australia for example?

Both economies generally aren't as reliant on the financial sector as much as we are so are able to be more stringent with them. Without checking to see if this is true, I think both of them had a long period of surplus as well so were able to offer quite a massive stimulus package in the immediate aftermath (I know this is true for Australia at least). To put it bluntly, too much of the economy and jobs in this country rely on imaginary numbers on a computer and it has been this way for a few decades now.  Even in Australia which is a huge natural resource exporter, they've seen manufacturing exports decrease considerably in the last ten years and the makeup of their economy in terms of service output isn't too dissimilar to us.

That's detracting from my point though. I'm not disagreeing with the principle that better regulation does help and I'm not denying that but the point I was trying to make is that with the UK specifically, we were at a point in the late 90s where the collapse was inevitable and the Labour Government was just managing an inevitable crisis which had already been made. JP Morgan pretty much come begging to the government as far back as 1999 basically saying that they had lost all their gold and were fucked (we then went on to pretty much give gold away at the lowest prices possible to try and settle the markets). Headquarters in London and I dread to think how many companies here would have collapsed had they went under at that moment.

If the story started in 1997 and it was just a case of things as they are and powers being dismantled from a stable state, I'd maybe see the point but we started out in total chaos long long before that and I'm not sure what specific legislation could have gotten us out of it.

[NotThePars]

You could be forgiven for thinking Peps has a point about the Russian spy poisoning if you watched footage of parliament today.

[harry94]

You could be forgiven for thinking Peps has a point about the Russian spy poisoning if you watched footage of parliament today.

Not really. It's just the same shite Russian deflection talking point where they spout plausible deniability (which will always exist in situations like this). There's proof beyond reasonable doubt that a state actor is involved.

It's not exactly WMD stuff.

[NotThePars]

Not really. It's just the same shite Russian deflection talking point where they spout plausible deniability (which will always exist in situations like this). There's proof beyond reasonable doubt that a state actor is involved.

It's not exactly WMD stuff.

Matters that concern the national interest should require the most robust scrutiny and evidence, not less. It’s staggering this needs to be pointed out instead of braying and jeering at any opposition to the dominant narrative atm.

[Peppino Impastato]

44 minutes ago, harry94 said:

Not really. It's just the same shite Russian deflection talking point where they spout plausible deniability (which will always exist in situations like this). There's proof beyond reasonable doubt that a state actor is involved.

It's not exactly WMD stuff.

Is there?  You've seen the evidence have you?  Or did Theresa may tell you?

[Baxter Parp]

Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn [emoji38]

UKIP [emoji38]

"new low" [emoji38]

[ICTChris]

Scottish Westminster voting intention:

SNP: 36% (-5)
CON: 28% (+1)
LAB: 27% (+3)
LDEM: 6% (-)
GRN: 2% (-)

via @Panelbase
Chgs w Sep 2017

[ICTChris]

Independence voting intention from the same poll

Yes - 43%
No - 57%

Scottish public preference for second independence referendum:

Not in the next few years: 58%
While Brexit is being negotiated: 17%
Following the negotiation of Brexit: 25%

via @Panelbase

101% due to rounding

[Lex]

Just not happening is it guys?

Despite Brexit and those big bad Tories being in power, it’s just not happening.

Great news!

[Antlion]

13 minutes ago, Lex said:

Just not happening is it guys?

Despite Brexit and those big bad Tories being in power, it’s just not happening.

Great news!

Brexit is great news? The “big bad Tories in power” (decided by southern England) is great news? There speaks Uncle Tam. 

[Lex]

Brexit is great news? The “big bad Tories in power” (decided by southern England) is great news? There speaks Uncle Tam. 

Yes and yes.

Also it was Scotland who really put the Tories in power last time around. Those Scottish Tory MP’s put us over the top.

Superb stuff.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

Independence voting intention from the same poll

Yes - 43%
No - 57%

Scottish public preference for second independence referendum:

Not in the next few years: 58%
While Brexit is being negotiated: 17%
Following the negotiation of Brexit: 25%

via @Panelbase

101% due to rounding

No change from last September with Panel Base then.