Snap General Election called

[Stom]

Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

[Banquo]

Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

Think the Tories are just relieved Boris didn't do anything daft. Like leak the NI giveaway

The head to heads were a daft thing to do for Boris, nothing much to gain as incumbent with a rubbish Tory record to defend, and a lot to lose. Much better for him to have an all party free for all tbh, though I guess being attacked by 5 or so others isn't a good look either.

[Mellsblue]

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

I didn’t watch it, either. I think they are huge waste of time and are just another step down the road of sound bite, shallow politics.

[Mellsblue]

Per a couple of points above. YouGov polls:
‘Leaving aside your one party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate’: Boris 51% v 49% JC
26% thought that both Boris and JC did well....

More stats here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... 1119_w.pdf

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

Think the Tories are just relieved Boris didn't do anything daft. Like leak the NI giveaway .

I thought he gave away NI when he agreed to customs border in the Irish Sea...ah, no, wait. Think I got the wrong end of the stick.

[Puja]

A few interesting points coming out of that data*:

Corbyn was the significant winner amongst people who had not yet decided on who they were going to vote for. He also got 67% of people thinking he did well, compared with 59% for Johnson. 44% of 2017 Conservative voters thought he did well, as opposed to 33% of of 2017 Labour voters for Johnson.

Given the pre-existing anti-Corbyn personal animus, you'd have to say that a debate where he came level with Johnson as an individual was a pretty solid result. I'd've been interested if the poll had been taken both before and after, to see whether any minds had been changed or if people had just heard what they wanted to hear and blanked out anything else (the stats on who won for the various age groups suggest the latter!).

Puja

*with the obvious caveat that stats can be made to say anything you want and, with my prexisting opinion that Johnson is a bloviating fucktrombone, I'm a touch biased in which ones I pull out.

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja

[Stom]

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja

Indeed. It's not difficult.

[Mellsblue]

It’s true you can make statistics say anything you want:
a) Conservative voters not part of a cult and therefore more reasonable and level headed with regards opposition politicians.
b) Johnson wins, making it a literal victory, a moral victory, a red, white and blue victory and a Churchillian victory.
c) Corbyn suffers from pre-existing personal animus but bloviating fucktrombone Johnson does not.
d) Corbyn repeats trick from 2017 of being victorious/level despite stats showing that he lost.
e) Corbynites on Twitter saying YouGov is a bias tool of the Conservative party until realising they had Corbyn winning amongst swing voters. Upon which, there was a volte fact to saying YouGov’s results are beyond question.

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja

He’s not just more unpopular than Johnson, he’s more unpopular than an leader of the two main parties since records began. Which is an achievement of sorts, I suppose. To counter that, being the incumbent is a huge disadvantage and being the underdog is a huge advantage. Both of which favour Corbyn. Look at Cleggmania. It’s great having no governing record to defend until you have to defend a governing record.
Johnson’s govt is the least successful ever. Ever. Brexit and the NHS are the voters’ two biggest concerns by miles, see graphic, and Labour is on the right/winning side of both of those in opinion polls. Corbyn should be hitting home run after home run. As it is, he ‘drew’ despite losing, per the YouGov poll, by 2% points.

[Mellsblue]

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja

Indeed. It's not difficult.

To his credit, he won’t lie. I mean, he won’t tell the truth but at least he won’t lie.

[Mellsblue]

I was working while the debate was going on, so didn't watch, not that it would have changed my opinion...

But I just consistently feel like Labour screw up their advantages. Corbyn did not have enough preparation and his answers that I saw did not have enough bite.

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja

He’s not just more unpopular than Johnson, he’s more unpopular than an leader of the two main parties since records began. Which is an achievement of sorts, I suppose. To counter that, being the incumbent is a huge disadvantage and being the underdog is a huge advantage. Both of which favour Corbyn. Look at Cleggmania. It’s great having no governing record to defend until you have to defend a governing record.
Johnson’s govt is the least successful ever. Ever. Brexit and the NHS are the voters’ two biggest concerns by miles, see graphic, and Labour is on the right/winning side of both of those in opinion polls. Corbyn should be hitting home run after home run. As it is, he ‘drew’ despite losing, per the YouGov poll, by 2% points.

Yes, I’m quoting myself.

I do not like defending this govt. They’re mostly a bunch of inept ideologues to the right of me but the Lab shadow front bench are an even more inept bunch of ideologues miles to the left of me. To paint Corbyn as anything other than useless is, to my mind, wholly wrong. Any competent, centrist Labour leader would have the election aim of securing a bigger majority than Blair. As it is, everyone is discussing which side of the majority line the Conservatives will fall.

[Digby]

of course if we do Brexit this could be a great election to lose

[Mellsblue]

of course if we do Brexit this could be a great election to lose

Everyone said that about 2010.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I don't think at any point I've raised a problem with tax bring levied on capital withdrawn from the company, I've commented that tax on capital income is a bad idea, and this is one alternative, albeit far from the only one

Dividends are an example of capital income.

But distributed

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, of course they are distributed. That doesn't make them not capital income.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Agreed - Johnson actually prepublished the questions he was going to ask on the Brexit policy and Corbyn still didn't have a pithy, pre-prepared answer ready. Or, indeed, any answer at all.

Hell, I'm no politician, but surely it's better to say something like, "Which way I'd vote in a new referendum isn't relevant - my job isn't to push my EU opinions on people, but to give them the choice and let the people decide," than just to avoid the question and hope it goes away. If he'd had an answer, any answer, that wouldn't get literally laughed at, then he'd've come out of that debate a lot stronger.

Mells - Corbyn's a lot more unpopular with the British public than Johnson is, from the polls at the start of this campaign, so he has got a lot more ground to make up. Hence my thought that a score draw is better progress for Corbyn than Johnson.

Puja

He’s not just more unpopular than Johnson, he’s more unpopular than an leader of the two main parties since records began. Which is an achievement of sorts, I suppose. To counter that, being the incumbent is a huge disadvantage and being the underdog is a huge advantage. Both of which favour Corbyn. Look at Cleggmania. It’s great having no governing record to defend until you have to defend a governing record.
Johnson’s govt is the least successful ever. Ever. Brexit and the NHS are the voters’ two biggest concerns by miles, see graphic, and Labour is on the right/winning side of both of those in opinion polls. Corbyn should be hitting home run after home run. As it is, he ‘drew’ despite losing, per the YouGov poll, by 2% points.

Yes, I’m quoting myself.

I do not like defending this govt. They’re mostly a bunch of inept ideologues to the right of me but the Lab shadow front bench are an even more inept bunch of ideologues miles to the left of me. To paint Corbyn as anything other than useless is, to my mind, wholly wrong. Any competent, centrist Labour leader would have the election aim of securing a bigger majority than Blair. As it is, everyone is discussing which side of the majority line the Conservatives will fall.

It is pretty frustrating. Blair* would have destroyed Boris in that debate (except that Boris would never have agreed to such a debate!). But Corbyn does come across as a human being. And to people who just get their current affairs from the Mail, Express, Sun etc, that's news.

* Despicable war criminal that he is.

[Digby]

Dividends are an example of capital income.

But distributed

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, of course they are distributed. That doesn't make them not capital income.

It's not capital income to the company once it's distributed

[Digby]

of course if we do Brexit this could be a great election to lose

Everyone said that about 2010.

I don't remember Brexit being a thing in 2010

[Mellsblue]

of course if we do Brexit this could be a great election to lose

Everyone said that about 2010.

I don't remember Brexit being a thing in 2010

The last eight words, obvs.

[Son of Mathonwy]

But distributed

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, of course they are distributed. That doesn't make them not capital income.

It's not capital income to the company once it's distributed

Look up the definition of capital income. I think you're using the wrong term.

[Stom]

btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

[Digby]

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Yes, of course they are distributed. That doesn't make them not capital income.

It's not capital income to the company once it's distributed

Look up the definition of capital income. I think you're using the wrong term.

I do all the time, and I'm actually an economist, sort of. Point being it shifts tax from the corporation to the individual, which makes much more sense. And it especially makes much more sense to plan it advance than to continue to stumble along as we are in a race of corp taxes being pushed down to 0% and then trying to bolt on poorly thought out schemes to replace the lost revenue

[Banquo]

btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

[Puja]

btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Oh, you wouldn't have heard of it. It's very niche, very indie {pushes black rimmed glasses up nose and adjust checked shirt}

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's not capital income to the company once it's distributed

Look up the definition of capital income. I think you're using the wrong term.

I do all the time, and I'm actually an economist, sort of. Point being it shifts tax from the corporation to the individual, which makes much more sense. And it especially makes much more sense to plan it advance than to continue to stumble along as we are in a race of corp taxes being pushed down to 0% and then trying to bolt on poorly thought out schemes to replace the lost revenue

In theory I agree that taxing the individual is better than taxing companies. There are some problems with this idea in practice, however:

1) It only really works if there is joined up thinking across the whole tax system in the long term, as follows. If companies aren't taxed then an owner can build up great amounts of value in them (capital gains) over time. This is ok only if these gains are taxed before they are paid (by whatever means) to the owner (or their estate, should it come to that). And if the system is watertight, they will be. But if there's a loophole, or if a certain government decides to make an exception, a tax break, etc then these gains will be funnelled through this route and will never be taxed. This is bad news, and there's nothing one government can do to prevent a future government (Trump-style) from enabling this tax-avoiding. So it's much safer to tax the capital gains the moment they arise (ie as profits).

2) Tax is raised from a variety of sources. In any given year, the amount taken from each source cannot be precisely predicted. So it's less risky to take income from lots of places - the total will be less volatile.

3) It's politically easier to take revenue from many sources - the pain is shared out.

[Mellsblue]

btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Oh, you wouldn't have heard of it. It's very niche, very indie {pushes black rimmed glasses up nose and adjust checked shirt}

Puja

The Vegan Times?

[Stom]

btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Do you watch ITV other than when the rugby is on? And I'm not counting ITV4 and your favorite reruns of Poirot!

Let's just say the broadcasting lends itself to a certain group of people, people who are more likely to respond to populism.

That was one of my problems. Her comment about "magic money trees", that Corbyn must have a whole forest of them, was dangerous and not the kind of thing the broadcaster should be saying. ITV should come under a lot of flack for that.

There was also nowhere near enough pressing on trust and honesty.

God, I'd love to see the leaders interviewed by Paxman. Boris would be wriggling like a fucking worm.

No questions on Arcuri - and Johnson was given more chances to ask Corbyn questions than the other way round. Then, when Corbyn finally got chance, he wasted it.

When you're working against a biased media, you need to take every chance you get, and this Labour spin team seem incapable of actually bloody spinning! Useless.

[Stom]

btw, Johnson has become more Trump like in his speech. He's using the same verbal ticks to push through certain points.

Mainly the cutting off of sentences, as rambling asides have always been there.

I was not impressed with the presenter keeping him in check. She should have had a button to turn off microphones.

But it is ITV, so the audience is more likely to be Daily Mail than anything else anyway...

interesting....what's the Guardian readers channel?

Oh, and the Guardian one is surely the one that's both free and accidentally calls itself fere.