The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)

[Gandalf the Red]

That's because the "old people" have sussed Corbyn and his cronies out. We've seen it all before.

They couldn't get elected in 1983. It beggars belief that they think they can win with virtually the same manifesto. Gerald Kaufmann called it "The longest suicide note in history". They went on to the biggest defeat in history and was unelectable for a generation.

Read this. Sound familiar?

The New Hope for Britain was a 39-page booklet which called for unilateral nuclear disarmament, higher personal taxation for the rich, withdrawal from the European Economic Community, abolition of the House of Lords, and the re-nationalisation of recently privatised industries like British Telecom, British Aerospace, and the British Shipbuilders Corporation. The manifesto was based on an earlier and much longer policy paper with a similar title, Labour's Plan: the New Hope for Britain.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longe ... in_history

[houston4044]

Ai, the "shy tory" thing is hardly surprising when everyones asserting that if you vote conservative you're a poor hating, fox murdering bastard who probably loves hitler.

But the question then follows, if you don't hate the poor or want to murder foxes, why would you vote for a party that does?

Because most people now think the best way to deal with Brussels is to vote in a party who are extremely willing to throw everything most people want under the bus just to say "yeah! That showed them! Oh, the NHS etc is screwed? EU bureaucratic meddling!".

I like the Labour manifesto but wow, it's idealism personified. The one thing that is grating though is while it's blue sky thinking at least they're pointing out a good general direction; so far everyone I've spoken to has dismissed it out of hand and scoffed at the ideas contained. I get 10,000 extra police or more money for the NHS and schools will be hard to come by but to dismiss all of it is just stupid (for the people I've spoken to e.g. none of them are rich) at least they have the right idea of what to do rather than continue Tory arbitrary cuts.

Saying that, had nothing better to do so caught Paul Nuttel's ITV leadership "interview", Corbyn isn't even going to win most unpopular leader with Nuttel kicking about Hardly an interview, more 30 minutes of accusations and defenses, think he only got to say 2 policy's

[Gandalf the Red]

Since when have the Tories despised the Lords? They might despise the types that Labour filled it up with (whilst calling for it to be abolished). But that's beside the point.

If a manifesto didn't get you elected 35 years ago when the country was far more unionised and working class. With a Prime Minister that was almost universally hated. Then how the hell do they think that a population that doesn't work in factories or down the mines is going to vote for them. Those arguments disappeared before 1990. The only ones who seem to be buying it are the dinosaur ex Militant Tendency members, misguided students and those that protest at everything and anything.

They might have stood a chance if they would have picked someone else. Virtually anyone else. The country needs a strong opposition no matter what side is in power. This lot are going to be wiped out by their own hand.


BTW I'm not rooting for any side. I've resigned myself to five years more of the same old thing we've had for years. But I certainly wouldn't vote for Corbyn.

[Haldamir319]

Saw a bunch of polls yesterday - made for interesting viewing. 6 or 7 of Labour's key policies from that leaked draft manifesto and they asked if they supported or opposed them.

Here are some of the results:

On banning zero hour contracts-
71% support
16% oppose

On renationalising the railways-
52% support
22% oppose

On renationalising the energy industry-
49% support
24% oppose

On keeping the ban on fox hunting-
78% support
12% oppose


On the flipside, Corbyn is still unpopular, polling behind May.

Info from ComRes

[robin8585]

How I vote is kind of irrelevant since I live in a very safe Labour seat which hasn't ever had an MP from a different party, so I might do what I did in 2015 and vote Green to help them save their deposit. Me and the Greens disagree quite vehemently on a lot of stuff, but they're very active in the local community, always out and about clearing up litter in parks and whatnot regardless of election cycle, so I kind of want to help them out again.

Most years I end up torn between a few of the not-the-Tories, and this year with that vindictive authoritarian incompetent May at the helm that's stronger than ever. I think every vote I've ever cast has been tactical or for the least-bad of the rest. But of all the manifestos I've read since I've been able to vote, Labour's is the first ever that I've agreed with almost totally. Might be nice to vote for something I actually agree with for a change, even if it is a waste of time.

[houston4044]

If a manifesto didn't get you elected 35 years ago when the country was far more unionised and working class. With a Prime Minister that was almost universally hated. Then how the hell do they think that a population that doesn't work in factories or down the mines is going to vote for them. Those arguments disappeared before 1990. The only ones who seem to be buying it are the dinosaur ex Militant Tendency members, misguided students and those that protest at everything and anything.

Because it's a different time?

We've had 35 years of history between then and now and a whole new raft of voters since then. The situation has changed drastically so you can't juxtapose what was happening 35 years ago to now.

I don't think Labour will win but at the same time I'm not going to dismiss them just because they're mirroring past policies.

Lib Dems announce they will legalise Cannabis, will help get over the Brexit blues

[Gandalf the Red]

My point is that those policies were quite popular with the general public back then and they still lost. They are less important now.

Nobody really cares who owns what as long as their bills are cheaper. Spending hundreds of billions of pounds renationalising everything is not going to be seen as good value for money.

[Tet]

Being that the Tories have added more national debt in the last 7 years then all Labour governments put together, all whilst under the banner of austerity, makes the idea that they can "balance the books" utterly bizarre. They've had 7 years in charge and completely failed to bring government borrowing and spending under control.

Sorry for you being the recipient of my wrath, but my Facebook feed has been full of this bullshit for a while now and I'm fed up with it. I need to rant. 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. That's what the austerity measures have been aimed at doing. The last Labour government increased the deficit tenfold in two years[1]. Since coming to power, the coalition government and later the Conservative government have reduced the deficit steadily every year, thanks to the austerity measures. Until the deficit is under control, we're just digging ourselves a bigger and bigger hole. So can the Conservatives be trusted to balance the books? Looking at the data, I'd say that yes, they can:



Maybe you don't like the impact of the measures that have been taken to achieve that. I can't say I'm exactly over the moon about that either. 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.

[ScrumpiesVeteran]

Well said Tet !

From a personal point of view, my politics are based on a number of matters. Aged 11 I was lucky enough to pass exams to go to a private school (hiss boo I hear!). As my parents did not earn much, my fees were completely paid for by a bursary from the school, as were those of approx. 25% of my classmates. My earliest memories of politics was that if Labour won the 1983 election they would immediately close the school I went to, and all others of a similar ilk. A shock introduction to politics.

During my education, all I remember is my mates at the local school constantly missing days on end from school as a result of the strikes from the militant unions. Several friends have stated repeatedly they consider their education to have suffered as a result of this.

My husband and I have always done rewarding jobs, but as often being the case, they don't reach the National Average. Despite this, during the last five years the amount we earn each has effectively risen by £5000 each, due to the Personal Tax Allowance brought in by the Coalition and Conservative Governments. When Dave and Co took office, they also politely suggested that; if able; people should pay down their loan, credit card and mortgage debts while rates were low. We did this (out of the extra money not being paid in tax) and at no additional "cost" to ourselves.

All I know is that whenever Labour get into power it goes ok to start with; then they run out of money. Then they start spending even more of my money (by raising taxes) and then it all goes tits up and everyone waits for the Conservatives to bail them out. Sadly; due to the global crash; this bail out was always going to take longer than anyone would like.

I also know that when I felt poor, Labour made me feel poorer. Whilst my real wage may not have risen significantly under the Conservatives, the decrease in Income Tax and the ability to repay debts makes me richer, simply by not being in that debt any more and giving me the ability to save.

Everyone has different politics for very different reasons. It (as was shown in the Brexit vote) has been proven that people vote for a party for any number of their ideals.

I think Labour have some good ideas. I dislike several Tory policies; but I do not trust Labour on the grounds of their tax everything mantra; lack of unity within the ranks; and the low competency level of so many of the cabinet (borne out of so many very excellent MPs refusing to work with Jezza).

I suspect after this election the Labour Party will split, with Jezza leading the Socialist Labour Party and another "Progressive" Labour party forming, comprising the centrist MPs without their heads in the far Socialist clouds of the 70s

[robin8585]

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.

This kind of thing is exactly why despite lurking on this forum since 2008 I generally don't look at anything past the current festival page and have posted a whole once in tis thread. It's so infuriatingly stupidly wrong I can't even. I've been staying out of social and political arguments publicly for a few years now because of ill health due to stress and this is a major contributor, but I just couldn't not say something. Going away now, won't see me here again.

Coming in here was a bad choice.

[Tet]

It's so infuriatingly stupidly wrong I can't even.

So despite me explaining why the claim about increasing the debt was technically correct but wildly misleading, and despite me backing it up with official government data that anyone can go an independently check, you choose to just call it stupidly wrong? OK then. I'm fine with anyone disagreeing with me. Indeed, I actively like hearing differening opinions to my own. But claiming facts are wrong because they don't fit your narrative? That's a whole level of "WTF?" that I just don't get.

Going away now, won't see me here again. Coming in here was a bad choice.

I believe the phrase the kids are using these days is "Bye, Felicia".

[Jobdone]

I CAN'T EVEN THO.

[Metalchemyst]

I take Haldamir's point a few pages back about immigration helping with the effects of an ageing population. But that can only be a short term solution to a great and ironic kind of problem. Ironic because increasing life span is a major sign of a materially successful society. So do we deliberately reduce funding to health care in various ways to make people less healthy? Encourage more smoking and sedentary pass-times? Sounds bizarre doesn't it? Realistically, more time and money is going to have to go into caring for old people. And maybe couples should be given incentives to have more children. Unless you think it's a good idea to gradually replace a post-Christian/secular population with Muslims who have big families.

Concerning the economy, I would be impressed if the Conservatives did something serious to stop so many people running up unaffordable debts.

[Andy (Dr Sin)]

Just seen this...

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[houston4044]

And maybe couples should be given incentives to have more children

It's too late for that kind of intervention alas. When you weigh up the costs of the stimulus to couples and the knock on costs (such as lower economic activity due to parental leave, investing alot more in schools to accommodate them etc) while at the same time having to provide that in addition to paying for the effects of a currently ageing population until the kids come of age would just kick the can down the road (plus if you take it ad absurd-um then your going to keep doing this every generation). No government could provide any meaningful intervention now.

Because the last Labour government left it in such a mess. Has it been successful? Absolutely....The last Labour government increased the deficit tenfold in two years[1].

It depends on how you look at it as to where blame can be attributed essentially. While I'm not a fan of Labour's I think it's a bit simplistic to essentially blame the Tories shortcoming's/ongoing progress (depending on which side of the fence you sit) to blame the previous Labour government.

Yes, Labour doubled the deficit in two years, but given the situation how could they not without bringing the house of cards tumbling down? They had 3 options:

1) Allow the banks to fail, the deficit would probably have been larger than it is now as business' either fail or contract sharply and so tax receipts shrink and the welfare state bloat, at which point either the state goes bankrupt, (2), or the deficit spikes far higher if the government additionally borrows to try and spur growth through Keynesian style intervention.

2)- Allow the banks to fail and slash government spending to keep the government books balanced, at which point what little business confidence left evaporates, the mass of the population are left destitute and so the cycle repeats.

3)- What Labour did, bail the banks out and borrow to keep consumer and business confidence buoyed until the economy settled.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had to be done really, unless you want to invite a more radical huge shake up of society.

Since coming to power, the coalition government and later the Conservative government have reduced the deficit steadily every year, thanks to the austerity measures. Until the deficit is under control, we're just digging ourselves a bigger and bigger hole. So can the Conservatives be trusted to balance the books? Looking at the data, I'd say that yes, they can:

Have the government "completely failed to bring government borrowing and spending under control"?

[/quote]

With a straight face, yes, you can say the government have failed to bring borrowing and spending under control, although not completely as you say.

Your figures fail to account for the government sales of assets, the long term impact of cutting capital spending and short sighted cuts.

The sales of the post office, government land etc are one time economic boons that contribute to reducing the deficit for one quarter prima facie but over the long term do nothing or even hinder it. (I know it's the military but cba to find a more relevant source right now https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/25/mod-privatise-military-housing-disaster-guy-hands ) So how much those figures are actively reducing the deficit through austerity vs one time sales to fluff the figures you can't be sure.

Can the Tories be trusted? No, but then again I doubt any party can. More to the point personally it is more how can the deficit be eliminated. Too complex to get into but in short, where cuts are made and/or Keynesian economics.