The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)

[metaldinosaur]

I'm a labour party member so, I'm voting Labour. However I expect the Tory party will most likely win.

I voted for Corbyn, first time with cautious optimism. Second time, because I didn't know what else to do. Its been very strange watching this all play out. Imo, the Labour party killed off Corbyn's chances with that, completely mental, 2nd leadership election after brexit. Too much internal fighting left Corbyn's team with a handful of inexperience, incompetent or (for Corbyn) insidious figures running the party. It also ended the very brief time when Corbyn was ahead in the polls (people forget that). The whole media machine was/is against him, including the traditional left-wing outlets like The Guardian and the bbc. I have to say, he just doesn't have the charisma to brake through this level of attack. It all makes for almost insurmountable odds. Basically, their fucked.

However, unless you're rich, I can't, as ever, see why you would vote for any other party. I don't like Corbyn's take of foreign policy or some of his stances on social issues, at all, but what he is saying on domestic policy could bring real change. As a man in his 30's from a working class background, I know that my life prospects have been completely destroyed by the Tory party. Tuition fee increases, pretty much cut me off form the field I wanted to go into, and I can't forgive them for that. There approach to anything in the public sector is just awful, teaching, nhs, the postal service, etc, are all been forced into business models that just don't work. There reliance on capitalist growth and competition as the only viable model for everything is ridiculous. Its the same old story, but its still true.

The Tories are the political wing of the rich. Ergo: if your not the rich why would you vote for them? Okay, I know a lot of answers to that question already, but which of those answers isn't tied to fear disguised as 'common sense'?

Is voting for Corbyn a risk? For me, yes, absolutely. If he where, by some miracle, to win I would be worried for the future, because some of the things he's suggesting are untested in an economy as big as ours. But its a dam sight better than knowing for sure that that this ridiculous ever increasing gap between the very rich and everyone else goes on. If you not of the very richest 'elite' and your voting Tory, I find that very strange, and, if I'm honest, even a bit cowardly.


Feel free to tell me otherwise, I'm always interested in other opinions. The very smartest people on the right often have an honest take on things.

[Gandalf the Red]

All I can say is that Labour were in power for a very long time and they left the country in a worse state than they inherited it from a pretty poor Major government. They had a little bit of success with the "Cool Britannia" era, then it fell apart. "Things can only get better", they did for five minutes and then got worse.

Mass immigration, zero hours contracts (yes, Labour introduced those, I had one when I worked for Royal Mail), selling off the bullion reserves for a pittance, spending billions on schools and hospitals as a vanity project using PFI which everyone's grandkids will be paying off for decades, unnecessary wars, the list could go on....

How anyone could vote those clowns back in is baffling. Even worse the current Labour party is a bunch of Politically Correct terrorist sympathisers. Even China shunned Corbyn.

As for polls. No I don't remember Corbyn ever being in the lead in any. In fact I believe he's the lowest ranked opposition leader since polls began, even worse than Michael Foot.

Hopefully he'll soon be consigned to being a footnote in history.

[houston4044]

The Tories are the political wing of the rich. Ergo: if your not the rich why would you vote for them? Okay, I know a lot of answers to that question already, but which of those answers isn't tied to fear disguised as 'common sense'?

(Not a Tory supporter by a long shot) Flip the question, why would you vote for Labour?
They by and large have a message that resonates with a larger proportion of the population (more poor/middling persons than rich persons) and yet they often manage to screw it up.

From personal and academic experience, the Tories generally only succeed by and large when Labour fail and people are willing to vote against what is generally in their best interests due to the perceptions around Labour's failings.

There are always internal strifes within all parties and none of them are as stable as they claim to be *cough* but Labour have a spectacular ability to implode every generation or so.

Personally I enjoy Corbyn for what he is, he is a principled politician which is a rare thing nowerdays with so many careerists around. As much as it ends up biting him on the arse he says what he thinks is best rather than whatever is popular with his party/whatever the electorate think they want. I won't be voting for Labour because of the PLP rather than Corbyn; but I know Corbyn isn't what Labour need right now. I already know how I'm voting but considering I live in such a safe seat I know my vote will merely be regarded as a statistic rather than a difference maker.

[metaldinosaur]

All I can say is that Labour were in power for a very long time and they left the country in a worse state than they inherited it from a pretty poor Major government. They had a little bit of success with the "Cool Britannia" era, then it fell apart. "Things can only get better", they did for five minutes and then got worse.

Mass immigration, zero hours contracts (yes, Labour introduced those, I had one when I worked for Royal Mail), selling off the bullion reserves for a pittance, spending billions on schools and hospitals as a vanity project using PFI which everyone's grandkids will be paying off for decades, unnecessary wars, the list could go on....

How anyone could vote those clowns back in is baffling. Even worse the current Labour party is a bunch of Politically Correct terrorist sympathisers. Even China shunned Corbyn.

As for polls. No I don't remember Corbyn ever being in the lead in any. In fact I believe he's the lowest ranked opposition leader since polls began, even worse than Michael Foot.

Hopefully he'll soon be consigned to being a footnote in history.

New Labour made a lot of mistakes: the shotgun altruism, the globalization policies and the the neo liberal economic strategy, though well intentioned, certainty had tremendous flaws. However, britain did get wealthier under them, with a around a decade of economic growth. The idea that their 'incompetence' caused the crash is just plain wrong and to blame them for a GLOBAL economic downturn is equally wrong. The idea that the Tories would have kept a tighter reign on the banks is just madness - clearly nobody saw it coming, not in time to do anything about it.

However, all this said, one of the main reasons I am voting Labour this time is that Corbyn's policies are as far away from New Labour as possible. Corbyn wants to give more money to the majority, he's out and out said it - hence the media outlets attacking him so viciously. He will nationalise things that NEED to be nationalised and he will do his best make a far more fair society, centrally promoting employee owned business.

Are their risks involved in such a programme, yes, big ones - but I'd rather take those risks than pussy out in favour of the few scraps that the Tories will throw me in favour of been 'strong' and fucking 'stable'.

Not all members of the party are sjw loonies either. As I said, I'm a party member; however some of my social politics are reasonably right-wing.

[houston4044]

The idea that the Tories would have kept a tighter reign on the banks is just madness

Do people really think that? Would of thought it was popular knowledge Tories are in favor of deregulation

He will nationalise things that NEED to be nationalised and he will do his best make a far more fair society, centrally promoting employee owned business.

Are their risks involved in such a programme, yes, big ones - but I'd rather take those risks than pussy out in favour of the few scraps that the Tories will throw me in favour of been 'strong' and fucking 'stable'.

I agree with the points you make but I can't see it happening in a post Brexit Britain, at this point I can see a race to the bottom happening, if Labour tried to put their foot down they'll just threaten to relocate at which point it'll just be spun as Labour failing to make Brexit work (sidenote: not saying I prefer what the Tories will do, just playing devil's advocate here).

[Gandalf the Red]

Anyone that advocates Nationalisation is either a deluded communist that still believes Das Kapital is relevant (watch Andrew Marr) or wasn't around before the 1990s.

Anyone remember British Rail? Or when you had a five year waiting list just for a GPO telephone? Or getting a gas cooker or fire when you could only get them from the Gas Board?

The way they privatised things was badly done. But it needed doing. We would be a Third World country if it hadn't happened.

And how will they afford it? They've already spent all the money about twelve times already.

[Metalchemyst]

For quite a time now, Labour have been trying to please two quite different sets of voters - the disadvataged working class and middle class cosmopolitans / empire apologists. The working class people went along with it for as long as they could stomach then turned to UKIP; now UKIP have shot their bolt they don't know where to go but probably regard Corbyn as a no-hoper. As I've said before, this country really needs a party which combines moderate socialism with a tough anti-immigration policy.

On a side note, I can't believe Corbyn has not come out strongly in favour of proportional representation.

On the French election, this is what a French girl from another forum said today:

"I wish 66% of french citizens to be killed in terrorist attacks. Degenerate leftist trash suicidal brainless people. And they fucking dare brag with that french flag in hands ??? If that is France this has never been my country, NEVER. They should better brag with ISIS and algerian flags as usual, would be more accurate . . . We knew it was over but I'm angry at the results in term of percents.. 66% is huge mental illness . . . People need 5 years more of shit, they need poverty, unemployment and blood to open their eyes but I think it is maybe too late. Because the great replacement of the population took over french citizens. Too many are from non french origin and they are more and more. Replacing french citizens. And that kind of ppl are becoming the new majority. Only few of them would vote Marine Le Pen... New party could hardly win in 5 years populatity enough. Macron succeed this because of money, lot of friends and money."

[Gandalf the Red]

As I've said before, this country really needs a party which combines moderate socialism with a tough anti-immigration policy.

That's what the Liberal Democrats should be and possibly was when they had Paddy Ashdown as leader. Tim Farron has made them more like the Greens crossed with Labour.

The centre ground is wide open for a new party. But I doubt that will happen. Unless there is a split in the Labour Party and disgruntled members form a new party. A bit like the SDP.

[red_death]

Anyone that advocates Nationalisation is either a deluded communist that still believes Das Kapital is relevant (watch Andrew Marr) or wasn't around before the 1990s.

Anyone remember British Rail?

BS! You don't have to be a communist to believe that nationalisation is certainly necessary for some sectors eg healthcare/education.

It is certainly very questionable that privatisation has improved the railways more than BR could have done given the same massive input of capital. BR was run on a shoestring with decades of under-investment. It isn't the private railway companies that have invested, but the Government (infrastructure) and the passenger through massive fare increases (stations and rolling stock).

As for Das Kapital being irrelevant, anyone that doesn't believe that large sections of a capitalist economy isn't built on the exploitation of labour is incredibly naive to say the least (look at the excesses of the likes of Sports Direct etc and many others to see the race to the bottom). A capitalist system clearly needs checks and balances to control those who would exploit - I don't see Tories queuing up to protect workers' rights, the environment etc.

I don't think that anyone seriously believes that communism is workable, but some of the principles surrounding equal opportunity, fairness etc I'd challenge anyone to dismiss.

[Gandalf the Red]

The last time I looked the NHS and education weren't privatised and there aren't any plans to do so. In fact it was Labour that used PFI to build new schools and hospitals that weren't even needed and has given the country a bill that won't be getting paid off for the next 30 odd years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loan ... 70214.html

As for BR v TOCs. It's the TOCs that bought all the new rolling stock and are still doing so. I saw brand new class 88s being delivered the other week, paid for by DRS. The Pendolinos and Voyagers were bought by Virgin to replace locomotives and rolling stock that were built in the 1960s. Mainly using technology that BR deemed too expensive (it was the same people that built the APT who had been headhunted by Fiat). But do you remember BR with empty trains as no one would travel on them? Now they are so ram packed that Jeremy Corbyn apparently can't even get a seat.

The mistake in privatisation was it should have included the infrastructure and should have been regional using the borders of the old Big Four railway companies. They also should have had an incentive to reopen closed railway lines.

Sport Direct? Don't work for them. Simple. Plenty of other retail and warehousing jobs out there. But as I already said, it was Labour that brought in zero hours contracts. It was also Labour that let in millions of unskilled immigrant workers pushing wages down and taking peoples jobs.

[red_death]

The last time I looked the NHS and education weren't privatised and there aren't any plans to do so. In fact it was Labour that used PFI to build new schools and hospitals that weren't even needed and has given the country a bill that won't be getting paid off for the next 30 odd years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loan ... 70214.html

As for BR v TOCs. It's the TOCs that bought all the new rolling stock and are still doing so. I saw brand new class 88s being delivered the other week, paid for by DRS. The Pendolinos and Voyagers were bought by Virgin to replace locomotives and rolling stock that were built in the 1960s. Mainly using technology that BR deemed too expensive (it was the same people that built the APT who had been headhunted by Fiat). But do you remember BR with empty trains as no one would travel on them? Now they are so ram packed that Jeremy Corbyn apparently can't even get a seat.

The TOCs don't own stock mostly - that is the ROSCOs. DRS are an exception but they are not a TOC and they are state-owned...actually just checked and the 88s were financed by Beacon Rail Leasing so not even owned by DRS.

Sorry to debunk another of your myths but there is no APT technology in the Pendolino (FIAT developed their own tilt technology). There is APT tilt tech in Super Voyagers.

I don't deny that the railways are hugely improved or that the usage has increased massively, my point was that BR was starved of investment (and was admired for its efficiency by the likes of SNCF and DB) and the modern railway isn't starved of investment.

My point (as you well know) was not that health or education need to be nationalised, but need to remain nationalised. If you think healthcare isn't already being privatised (even Labour started some of that) then you haven't been paying attention. Education is a bit more nuanced but the academy system is certainly open to abuse:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... w-business

PFI was a mistake, but understandable given the desperate need to invest in schools and hospitals (again after a decade + of Tory underinvestment - notice a common theme here?). Labour were so desperate to be seen to be economically competent by keeping Govt borrowing off the Govt books that they made a mistake.

[Gandalf the Red]

I did say "(it was the same people that built the APT who had been headhunted by Fiat)"

Many of the people that worked on the Pendelinos were the APT E and P Train lot. Led by Kit Spackman (AKA Mr Tilt). They all came from the aerospace sector and ended up working at RTC in Derby. They were then headhunted by Fiat.

Even if the TOCs don't own the rolling stock then the leasing companies do. None of those are state owned. They've put billions into rolling stock production. Which is kind of my point. A nationalised BR like Labour are envisioning won't be having billions of pounds investment. It'll probably also be the end of HS2, HS3 and the electrification projects.

And they certainly won't be letting Labour get anything on the cheap. So where are they going to get the money that they've already spent numerous times already?

[houston4044]

It'll probably also be the end of HS2

good

PFI was a mistake, but understandable given the desperate need to invest in schools and hospitals (again after a decade + of Tory underinvestment - notice a common theme here?). Labour were so desperate to be seen to be economically competent by keeping Govt borrowing off the Govt books that they made a mistake.

This isn't unique to Labour I know but when you word it like that it doesn't make it any better, if anything it makes it worse. If Labour were either that shortsighted/desperate/ignorant (delete as applicable) to have signed off on PFI why would I trust them not to make a similar mistake in future in similar circumstances? Ultimately the blame should lie with the Tories for creating the situation to begin with but still.

[Gandalf the Red]

It'll probably also be the end of HS2

good

Why is that good? The country needs it. In fact it should be getting extended to Scotland.

[Jobdone]

Because no one expects HS2 to get done anywhere near budget, or within schedule, or generally be anything useful other than allowing Londoners to live outside of London and shift their housing/rent prices to those areas.