snap general election?

reallyarunner

bendertherobot wrote:

reallyarunner wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i had high hopes for her.... however, she makes MT look like from the far left of UK politics.

i ve yet to hear her state any policies at all, she blusters her way through interviews without saying much and the BBC at least give her a very easy time indeed, as did Peston the other night, shameful really.

Not quite sure why she is so popular, given she has lied her way through from the referendum vote to calling this GE.

I really struggle to see how she's so popular. I didn't think Cameron could be beaten for being so out of touch with the working class....but she runs him very close.

I'd get it if things were going swimmingly with the NHS, social care, schools, wages etc but they're pretty real problems and almost half of the population were against Brexit.....especially the hard brexit she is pushing for.

Yes, Labour are an absolute clusterf*ck but I was always told you can't polish a turd.

Nine out of twelve regions voted leave. It was clear what leave meant before the referendum, it meant leaving the single market and abandoning the freedoms associated with it. All the talk of a 'hard' and 'soft' brexit has come about after the result as a way of trying to subvert it. An exit as defined as a 'soft' brexit is really no exit at all.
I would hazard a guess that the voters who have witnessed the court case and talk of remaining in the single market are impressed by TMs stance.

Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.

Were customs charges and tariffs part of project fear?

Not for me. Scaremongering was Osborne claiming WW3 could break out and the economy would crash (whether Carney believed this only he knows) and Obama threatening to cold shoulder UK in terms of trade.

The possibility of tariffs were discussed by both sides, i think Garage (sic) even mentioned he expected them in a debate.

There was a lot of rubbish spouted on both sides however, i will say that.

rick_chasey

Can you explain why a soft Brexit is subversive?

Various forms of what we now all a soft Brexit were used a lot by the main Tory campaigners.

None of them advocated a hard Brexit.

And do you find the scaremongering about immigrants more convincing than of economics?

surrey_commuter

reallyarunner wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

i had high hopes for her.... however, she makes MT look like from the far left of UK politics.

i ve yet to hear her state any policies at all, she blusters her way through interviews without saying much and the BBC at least give her a very easy time indeed, as did Peston the other night, shameful really.

Not quite sure why she is so popular, given she has lied her way through from the referendum vote to calling this GE.

I really struggle to see how she's so popular. I didn't think Cameron could be beaten for being so out of touch with the working class....but she runs him very close.

I'd get it if things were going swimmingly with the NHS, social care, schools, wages etc but they're pretty real problems and almost half of the population were against Brexit.....especially the hard brexit she is pushing for.

Yes, Labour are an absolute clusterf*ck but I was always told you can't polish a turd.

Nine out of twelve regions voted leave. It was clear what leave meant before the referendum, it meant leaving the single market and abandoning the freedoms associated with it. All the talk of a 'hard' and 'soft' brexit has come about after the result as a way of trying to subvert it. An exit as defined as a 'soft' brexit is really no exit at all.
I would hazard a guess that the voters who have witnessed the court case and talk of remaining in the single market are impressed by TMs stance.

Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.

That is just not true. A simple Google back to May 2016 will show extensive debate about Norway, Swiss or Canada.

rick_chasey

Meanwhile: Britain [X] seek to remain a member of the European Single Market:

Should: 51%
Should not: 26%

(via YouGov)

https://twitter.com/britainelects/statu ... 1827205121

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can you explain why a soft Brexit is subversive?

Various forms of what we now all a soft Brexit were used a lot by the main Tory campaigners.

None of them advocated a hard Brexit.

And do you find the scaremongering about immigrants more convincing than of economics?

As an aside, Jacob Rees Mogg and (an actual main tory) David Davies favoured relatively hard Brexits didn't they?

Does anyone else feel this election has run out of steam already? It just seems endlessly dismal if you aren't a Tory supporter.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Meanwhile: Britain [X] seek to remain a member of the European Single Market:

Should: 51%
Should not: 26%

(via YouGov)

https://twitter.com/britainelects/statu ... 1827205121

Given the comments below it, the should answers may well include a portion of the electorate who think staying in but removing freedom of movement is what should happen...

bompington

Jez mon wrote:

Does anyone else feel this election has run out of steam already? It just seems endlessly dismal if you aren't a Tory supporter.

TBH it feels pretty dismal if you are a Tory supporter - one like me who is in favour of free markets (May is pretty managerialist and prone to inventing economic policy based on how she thinks it might poll), staying in the EU, and simple honest competence - there really isn't anyone standing in my name, full stop.
Meanwhile my FB feed fills up with moronic pro-Corbyn propaganda from the new "alt-left" online rags, often posted by people I thought had some sense.
What a delightful age to live in.

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can you explain why a soft Brexit is subversive?

Various forms of what we now all a soft Brexit were used a lot by the main Tory campaigners.

None of them advocated a hard Brexit.

And do you find the scaremongering about immigrants more convincing than of economics?

As an aside, Jacob Rees Mogg and (an actual main tory) David Davies favoured relatively hard Brexits didn't they?

Rees Mogg's a backbencher who gets airtime because it beggars belief he can get into parliament, behaving the way he does.

He's to the Tory party what Corbyn used to be to Labour.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Does anyone else feel this election has run out of steam already? It just seems endlessly dismal if you aren't a Tory supporter.

TBH it feels pretty dismal if you are a Tory supporter - one like me who is in favour of free markets (May is pretty managerialist and prone to inventing economic policy based on how she thinks it might poll), staying in the EU, and simple honest competence - there really isn't anyone standing in my name, full stop.
Meanwhile my FB feed fills up with moronic pro-Corbyn propaganda from the new "alt-left" online rags, often posted by people I thought had some sense.
What a delightful age to live in.

Yes the teachers on my FB feed seem very keen on "another angry voice".

rick_chasey

Meanwhile, Tories are gunning for a cap on energy tariffs...

What a different 2 years makes eh?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Meanwhile, Tories are gunning for a cap on energy tariffs...

What a different 2 years makes eh?

And trying to claim that their policy is different, because... you know... erm...

bompington

...yep, that's exactly the kind of thing I mean.

kingstongraham

reallyarunner wrote:

Scaremongering was Osborne claiming WW3 could break out

Which he never did.

Cameron said that instability is reduced by the cooperation of countries in the EU.

Anyway - I'd say WW3 feels more likely now than it did a year ago. Brexit is only a very small contribution to that, however.

surrey_commuter

How do we think she is going to reduce net immigration to sub 100,000?

This encapsulates my dilemma with TM;

Option 1: she has the research to show that EU figures will become negative as many more leave than come here. As a back up plan they can not include students or she has a plan to count them properly.

Option 2: She says anything to keep people happy even when it is unnecessary like energy price cap.

veronese68

Changing your mind is the only consistent thing in the Tory party at the moment. Caps on energy tariffs are bad, caps on energy tariffs are a great idea, Boris is pro EU, Boris heads up the Leave campaign,TM is pro EU, TM is pro Brexit, TM definitely won't hold an election, TM will hold an election, Zac is a Tory, Zac is an independent, Zac is a Tory again.
Strong and stable or indecisive shambles? Unfortunately the Labour party are even more of a shambles when we really need an effective opposition.

bendertherobot

I think that parties are entitled to change their mind. But they need to explain why they've done it.

Of course, there's no need to do that if the media don't call you out on it.

Twitter says that the Energy Minister was rubbish today on the radio. I've no idea if that's true. But I suspect it won't make its way into being a meme.

kingstongraham

Heard Amber Rudd on the radio - She said student figures are a red herring. As long as you count them in and count them out, doesn't it balance out over time?

I guess it gives a reason in the short term to reduce students, as that will mean more are leaving than arriving in a given year. Which is the opposite of what they say they want to do, so I've answered my own question while typing.

Jez mon

bendertherobot wrote:

I think that parties are entitled to change their mind. But they need to explain why they've done it.

Of course, there's no need to do that if the media don't call you out on it.

Twitter says that the Energy Minister was rubbish today on the radio. I've no idea if that's true. But I suspect it won't make its way into being a meme.

For all I don't like him, from the comments above, George Osborne is the only one who has explained why it's a bad idea.

bendertherobot

Jez mon wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

I think that parties are entitled to change their mind. But they need to explain why they've done it.

Of course, there's no need to do that if the media don't call you out on it.

Twitter says that the Energy Minister was rubbish today on the radio. I've no idea if that's true. But I suspect it won't make its way into being a meme.

For all I don't like him, from the comments above, George Osborne is the only one who has explained why it's a bad idea.

He's probably right. It's a populist move. Much like 10,000 more police officers. Sounds great, what's the reality?

TheBigBean

With regard to energy prices, wholesale electricity prices are still really low, so the recent increase for the consumer must be the cost of the renewables. It would be nice if the government was honest about this.

With regard to capping the standard variable tarrif, I don't this is terrible if it is at fair level that simple prevents energy companies taking advantage of those that don't understand the various tariffs on offer. In an ideal world, this would be fixed by the free market, but energy is an oligopoly not a perfectly free market.

Ben6899

reallyarunner wrote:

Nine out of twelve regions voted leave...

Lovely manipulation of the stats to disguise the 52/48% split and the low turn out.

Why don't we really f** around with the numbers and write...

"A whole country voted leave"?

Or conversely...

"only 2.3% of a continent voted leave"?

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

In an ideal world, this would be fixed by the free market, but energy is an oligopoly not a perfectly free market.

It's not so much the oligopoly as the way the market functions - which is more to do with consumer behaviour than anything else. If you had to buy your gas & electric every week you would pay more attention, but so many people can't be bothered with the hassle.

kingstongraham

Heard Amber Rudd on the radio - She said student figures are a red herring. As long as you count them in and count them out, doesn't it balance out over time?

I guess it gives a reason in the short term to reduce students, as that will mean more are leaving than arriving in a given year. Which is the opposite of what they say they want to do, so I've answered my own question while typing.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Heard Amber Rudd on the radio - She said student figures are a red herring. As long as you count them in and count them out, doesn't it balance out over time?

I guess it gives a reason in the short term to reduce students, as that will mean more are leaving than arriving in a given year. Which is the opposite of what they say they want to do, so I've answered my own question while typing.

Apparently we ask a handful on their way out how long they were here for etc

so yes if you started counting properly then you should be able to knock 100,000 off your net migration numbers that will only last for four years of course so if they drag their heels setting it up it will last through to the next election.

see what I mean - TM is she a genius or completely out of her depth???

bendertherobot

Ben6899 wrote:

reallyarunner wrote:

Nine out of twelve regions voted leave...

Lovely manipulation of the stats to disguise the 52/48% split and the low turn out.

Why don't we really f** around with the numbers and write...

"A whole country voted leave"?

Or conversely...

"only 2.3% of a continent voted leave"?

Apparently France is divided on 65%.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

In an ideal world, this would be fixed by the free market, but energy is an oligopoly not a perfectly free market.

It's not so much the oligopoly as the way the market functions - which is more to do with consumer behaviour than anything else. If you had to buy your gas & electric every week you would pay more attention, but so many people can't be bothered with the hassle.

Ha.

It's a ripe market for collusion. Oligopolistic with a product everyone needs.

My landlord, for example, stipulates in my contract I must stay with the same energy supplier because of all the hassle they gave him when tenants started price surfing between providers.

So it's not always that simple.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Heard Amber Rudd on the radio - She said student figures are a red herring. As long as you count them in and count them out, doesn't it balance out over time?

I guess it gives a reason in the short term to reduce students, as that will mean more are leaving than arriving in a given year. Which is the opposite of what they say they want to do, so I've answered my own question while typing.

Apparently we ask a handful on their way out how long they were here for etc

so yes if you started counting properly then you should be able to knock 100,000 off your net migration numbers that will only last for four years of course so if they drag their heels setting it up it will last through to the next election.

see what I mean - TM is she a genius or completely out of her depth???

Surely if you actually count and subtract the 100,000 then that's knocked off every year? I'm missing something aren't I :oops:

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Heard Amber Rudd on the radio - She said student figures are a red herring. As long as you count them in and count them out, doesn't it balance out over time?

I guess it gives a reason in the short term to reduce students, as that will mean more are leaving than arriving in a given year. Which is the opposite of what they say they want to do, so I've answered my own question while typing.

Apparently we ask a handful on their way out how long they were here for etc

so yes if you started counting properly then you should be able to knock 100,000 off your net migration numbers that will only last for four years of course so if they drag their heels setting it up it will last through to the next election.

see what I mean - TM is she a genius or completely out of her depth???

Surely if you actually count and subtract the 100,000 then that's knocked off every year? I'm missing something aren't I :oops:

we count how many come in but we do not count how many leave at the end of their studies. Apparently we do a random tiny sample at border control (exit) and extrapolate the numbers from there. So if you started counting properly you would have a bank of people several hundred thousand strong to depress your nit migration numbers

kingstongraham

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Heard Amber Rudd on the radio - She said student figures are a red herring. As long as you count them in and count them out, doesn't it balance out over time?

I guess it gives a reason in the short term to reduce students, as that will mean more are leaving than arriving in a given year. Which is the opposite of what they say they want to do, so I've answered my own question while typing.

Apparently we ask a handful on their way out how long they were here for etc

so yes if you started counting properly then you should be able to knock 100,000 off your net migration numbers that will only last for four years of course so if they drag their heels setting it up it will last through to the next election.

see what I mean - TM is she a genius or completely out of her depth???

Surely if you actually count and subtract the 100,000 then that's knocked off every year? I'm missing something aren't I :oops:

Net migration - so if 500,000 arrive and start a course, and 500,000 finish a course and leave, there is a net of zero.

If you reduce the number starting a course this year to 400,000, then the net migration goes down by 100,000 until this year's intake leaves. Then goes back to what it was.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

we count how many come in but we do not count how many leave at the end of their studies. Apparently we do a random tiny sample at border control (exit) and extrapolate the numbers from there. So if you started counting properly you would have a bank of people several hundred thousand strong to depress your nit migration numbers

Maybe. If you aren't counting, then what we have is a best guess, surely. Could be wrong either way, couldn't it?