The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)

[red_death]

But basically, fuck off with your misinformation and misplaced blame. Why is the economy shit? Why was austerity necessary? Because the last Labour government left it in such a mess. Has it been successful? Absolutely.

Has the debt grown hugely in the last 7 years? Yes, it has. Has it grown by more than it did under every previous Labour government combined? Yes. Why? Because of the staggeringly bad state of the national budget deficit. By definition, the debt will continue to grow while we have a budget deficit. Until we get into surplus, we will have to borrow more money to cover our outgoings.
But bringing the deficit under control is essential. Have the austerity measures achieved that? I think it's fairly obvious that yes, they have. Have the government "completely failed to bring government borrowing and spending under control"? I can't see how anyone can make that claim with a straight face.

[1] No, I'm not entirely blaming them for that. They happened to have the misfortune to be in power during a global financial crisis. Do I think other parties might have managed the situation better? Maybe. But be that as it may, the economy inherited by the coalition was in a terrible state, and that's not the sort of thing that can be fixed overnight.

Given that you acknowledge Labour wasn't to blame for the global financial crisis then it seems illogical to then squarely blame Labour for the level of national debt.

I would question your statement that reducing the deficit is essential - it is important but not essential and could have been done in a more managed, slower fashion ie avoiding the brutal cuts that are going to come back to bite us. The deficit reduction has been successful in reducing the deficit at a time when interest rates are at historic lows and therefore national debt interest payments are far from the highest we have managed (apologies the image below has been cropped at the end missing off showing that debt interest has increased in 2010 and 2011):



Could alternative policies (eg more Keynesian investment) actually have proved more beneficial in the medium/long term.

The real point is that it is a myth that Labour can't be trusted with the economy (and that the Tories are more economically competent/always having to clear up Labour's mess). The Labour Govt post WW2 had to deal with much greater debt and still managed to create the NHS and much of the welfare state.

[Gandalf the Red]

Wasn't that by borrowing money from the Americans at a very high rate of interest which took fifty years to pay back?

There's also the little fact that they were kicked out of power in 1951 and never got back in until Harold Wilson in the mid 1960s. Who funnily enough was the only PM that was my actual MP.

[ScrumpiesVeteran]

I read an article in the news today that in last year's Brexit vote, 3 million people who had never registered previously, were added to the electoral roll.

If anyone on this forum falls into that group, will you vote again in this election ? Was Brexit simply a defining issue and do you consider the job done, given we are apparently committed to leave ?

The article I read implied that the "average voter" registering last year was likely to be working class with a tendency towards Labour. Given their more moderate view of Brexit, would you consider this view to be correct ?

[slayerslays]

The welfare state and the NHS free-for-all has created a nation of irresponsible hedonists and attracted feck knows who from around the world and because of them the truly disabled are subjected to ritual humiliation.

[houston4044]

I read an article in the news today that in last year's Brexit vote, 3 million people who had never registered previously, were added to the electoral roll.

If anyone on this forum falls into that group, will you vote again in this election ? Was Brexit simply a defining issue and do you consider the job done, given we are apparently committed to leave ?

The article I read implied that the "average voter" registering last year was likely to be working class with a tendency towards Labour. Given their more moderate view of Brexit, would you consider this view to be correct ?

From the friends I know who voted for the first time for the referendum, the main two things I got from them was that they voted because it was a single straight forward question, whereas GE's your expected to try and account for multiple factors. Second it was a once in a lifetime opportunity, out of 9 people only 2 intend to vote in the GE as they see it as business as usual now.

[Haldamir319]

How does everyone see this panning out in the end? A Tory win seems beyond discussion, but the size of it seems up for debate. At the announcement of the election, they Tories had between a 20 and 25 point lead (depending which poll you read). Some of those polls now have it down to around 9 points.

Is this going to be the hammering that some predicted early on, or more likely a comfortable-yet-not-thrashing win for the Conservatives?

[Cassius]

I think its still looking like a win but not a big 1 however unlike at the start of the election I think there is now a small chance of a Labour victory

Even if the Tories do win my hope is that Labour remember the policies in the current manifesto are popular for the 2022 election which will probably see a switch in government due to Brexit being a poisoned chalice

[Tet]

A Tory win seems beyond discussion

I'm no longer so sure of that. All they had to do was not upset people and they were due a landslide victory. So what have they been promising the country since the election was announced? Restoration of fox hunting. A step back from their proposed ban on ivory trading[1]. The so called "dementia tax". Censorship of the Internet on an unprecedented scale. It's almost as if they're going out of their way to shoot themselves in the foot. They may well still win anyway, but it's not looking like they'll get the huge majority that was being predicted. Which is good news from my perspective. At this point, I'm thinking that another hung parliament would be the best outcome for which we could hope.

[1] I actually agree with this one. But it's waaaay too easy to spin into "the Tories hate elephants", even if that's not actually true. Which is exactly what the media did.

[houston4044]

I think the Tories were so confident of a landslide and overestimated how much people would be voting purely on Brexit that they could ditch the populist tendencies and be more open with some of their intentions they wouldn't raise prior to their being in power (fox hunting, cutting back the state and curbing the rules of the internet in the name of counter-terrorism etc). Now that the narrative is starting to veer away from Brexit alone that they're coming unstuck as most of their proposals are frankly, terrible. Seems they've over extended the Brexit vote and now found that people won't give them a blank cheque that they were hoping for.

[Haldamir319]

Tet - would be interested to hear why you're okay with them stepping back from the ivory trading ban. Is it because it was proposed as a blanket ban, meaning it affects all ivory (including, say, things that are centuries old) as opposed to honing in of ivory smugglers etc.?

[Tet]

Basically, yes. A ban on antique ivory won't bring those animals back to life, and it won't prevent today's animals from being slaughtered for their ivory. At which point, what is it hoping to achieve?

[Haldamir319]

I understand your point, even if I don't agree with it.

I think we need a total ban, and to encourage other nations to do it also. This is what will help prevent it happening in the first place. Yes, there'll be black market trade (as there is in anything), but I think removing it's acceptability wholesale will help.

[Gandalf the Red]

Basically, yes. A ban on antique ivory won't bring those animals back to life, and it won't prevent today's animals from being slaughtered for their ivory. At which point, what is it hoping to achieve?

That's the key phrase. Antique.


If it's verified that it's over a certain age then no problem as far as I'm concerned.

Why destroy something that's been beautifully crafted years ago when nobody knew different?


They burn tons of the recovered poached stuff. They should just flood the market with it instead and the Chinese probably won't buy it if it's worthless. They only buy it as a status symbol.

Education is the key. Get the Orientals to realise that rhino horn, tiger penis, elephant teeth, etc. aren't aphrodisiacs then you're most of the way there.

[houston4044]

Basically, yes. A ban on antique ivory won't bring those animals back to life, and it won't prevent today's animals from being slaughtered for their ivory. At which point, what is it hoping to achieve?

I agree with the principle but I would stick with a total ban, the second you make exceptions people are going to stretch them and try to circumvent them. It's just going to create a slippery slope which is going to be hard to hold to the level you intend (and as to who will be appointed judge of "antique" will be a point of contention and lead to people blaming the judges rather than avoid ivory from dodgy sources or try to pass it off as an antique). There's far too much money in it the second you even open the gate it'll just create a flood.

[Gandalf the Red]

I don't know how to sort out Antique Ivory. We're not allowed to touch it. We certainly can't sell it. If it seems to be ivory, then it goes to a specialist with all the other jewellery. We get a lot of that due to the fact that people of the age that wore it are dying out. You find it's mostly fake costume stuff.

But I think if Beardy turned up with an elephant then it might be a bit suspicious.