Forum menu
To be honest I'm quite happy with the situation as it stands, where the amount of damage any one party can do is severely curtailed. Its actually been quite funny watching 'World King' Joris Bohnsons impotent rage at his inability to actually do anything
The worst thing that can happen IMHO is anyone getting an overall majority. Nobody in UK politics could be trusted with one, on account of the fact that they're all mental! Luckily there seems to be a vanishingly small chance of that happening
I've decided I'll vote for any party that doesn't have candidates:
kissing babies
pulling pints
drawing pictures with young kids in a school
walking around a hospital talking to patients
None of the above has anything to do with competency as a PM, surely no one views such things other than with a large dose of cynicism but then they keep doing it so presumably some data being farmed from somewhere indicates it works
Oh and to the working class guy on the BBC News this morning who felt the Westminster elite were robbing him (and his working class peers) of their Brexit decision - maybe take 5 seconds to have a think about who in Westminster is supporting Brexit and maybe, just maybe realise it's not going to be in the interests of the working class and won't fix austerity or give you more job opportunities.
steve – I’m 58 and yes I remember the 70s. dunno whats that got to do with the ludicous assertion I am some sort of hard lefty. 70s labour were not after all
You seem to see nationalisation as some panacea ... my own memories of the 70's are it was far from ideal, so far from ideal it had many Labour voters become Tory's.
they should then immediately call a GE?
Oh, that was if they were dependant on both a unionist and an independence party. That kind of cooperation could get a referendum bill through parliament for an EU referendum, but not a Scottish one, so would probably have a short shelf life, and Labour would want to go back to the people and try and get a majority after we have either left the EU or binned Brexit, wouldn’t they?
I thought Labour had promised an EU referendum within 6 months if they are in government after the election?
Doesn't mean much though without saying HOW and the mechanics.
Problem is we currently have 3.5 options ... (if you count Boris' option as something other than just a worse option than May's) and we potentially have another Labour option...
Quite honestly (much as I'd like it) I don't see how there can be a United Kingdom (emphasis on united) unless the No Deal is put on the table and how any deal/revoke would be put to a referendum that wouldn't return the least worst compromise. (Some sort of crappy deal)
but most importantly I don't see any remotely fair campaigning and facts being possible with social media which I believe is what led us into this in the first place.
Perhaps 6mo might be long enough to actually start to think HOW we prevent lies being published and 90% of voters preferring their FB feed to actually reading a policy, manifesto or some actual factual source???
Anyway, recent polls show both main parties getting rising support as we head towards the election. Will that change to Labour continuing to rise and the Tories falling? Cross everything…
All labour need to do to win this election is remind everyone just how funny it was seeing the look on Theresa Mays face when she lost her majority - like Dot Cotton licking piss of a thistle - and ask them to picture how funny it would be if Mr 'Can-do' smug, born-to-rule Johnson managed to lose this election. Picture the look on his smarmy, self-satisfied face. Then picture Dominic Cummmings going mental in number 10
Guaranteed landslide victory!
That's how bad politics in this country has become, we're looking back on May's catastrophe and it's almost looking like the halcyon days.
Now what do we have? Mr organic potato head vs Mr Russian potato head.
ask them to picture how funny it would be if Mr ‘Can-do’ smug, born-to-rule Johnson managed to lose this election.
They are trying that, with a bit of “I was not born to rule” stuff from Corbyn. Might be too subtle though… perhaps a compilation video of Johnson looking lost and beaten.
Labour have made a firm commitment to a referendum in 6 months with whatever deal is on the table then v remain
Beside all the noise..
I just don't understand why anyone would for Conservatives unless they are really really rich, and really really selfish.
I just don’t understand why anyone would for Conservatives unless they are really really rich, and really really selfish.
Indeed - but Nye Bevin pointed out long ago that this is the Tories' remarkable ability - to convince people to vote for them despite it being against their own interests.
You seem to see nationalisation as some panacea … my own memories of the 70’s are it was far from ideal, so far from ideal it had many Labour voters become Tory’s
.
The round of nationalisation done in the 70's was to protect the jobs of failed free market companies. Of course the tories even then were much better at marketing and blamed the rescue attempt rather than the actual cause, poor business practises and greed.
Now look at the industries labour are saying could be nationalised, and ask are they actually operational without government subsidy, and if no, then the answer is clear that the current situation is a fraud, that taxpayers are subsidising shareholders of failed corporations, and that nationalisation is the only way to get value for the billions of subsidies being leached by those companies.
And Frankly privatisation of the energy and public transport has been an environmental disaster. The only way we can meet future environmental plans is to have an organised energy and transport systems that are based on the countries needs and not on shareholder profits.
tjagain
Member
Am I missing something? all the polls are suggesting a lower % of the vote for the tories than in 2017. so how does this translate into a huge majority for the tories?
FPTP being ****ed. You know that...
2017, May got 42.4% of the vote and Corbyn got 40.0%, which translated into 317 and 262 seats- 48.7% and 40.3% of seats respectively.
2015, Cameron got 36.9% and Miliband got 30.4%, translating into 330 and 232 seats- 50.7% and 35.7% respectively.
2010, Cameron got 36.1% and Brown got 29%, translating into 306 and 258- 47.1% and 39.6%.
1/3 = 1/2 except when it = 1/3d, 40% = 40% except when it equals 50%, a minority is a majority and ignorance is strength. Why would, or even how could, 2019 be any different? 36% gets a majority for Cameron, 40% gets a minority for Corbyn, Miliband gets more votes but less seats than Brown, Corbyn gets more votes than Cameron managed in either election and gets almost the same number of seats as Brown got with far less voter share, Cameron gains less than a % of the votes and gains 24 seats... It's all barking mad. Oh yeah and let's not even mention UKIP and the SNP, you need to have a degree in unmaths for that to make sense.
So why shouldn't 38% of votes get you a strong majority if you're Johnson when 42.4% doesn't if you're May? And why shouldn't 28% of votes if you're Corbyn get you 186 seats when it gets Brown 258?
It's easy to look at the polls and forecasts and think they don't make sense but if they did make sense, they'd be wrong.
Votes don't equal MPs 😉
Ta Northwind - I was just looking at tory totals and thinking it was less than May so no majority
This election more than any other there are going to be regional effects so UK wide polls are going to be hard to apply
I still do not see the tories making the 30 odd gains they are going to need for even a slender majority
espcially as the polls seem to show tory support dropping ad labour rising
DrJ
Indeed – but Nye Bevin pointed out long ago that this is the Tories’ remarkable ability – to convince people to vote for them despite it being against their own interests.
The issue has been that what Bevin created has grown beyond sustainability.
On one hand the NHS haemorrhages cash as a matter of policy whilst on the other it's remit for free at the point of need (or what need means) has been continually widened whilst on the 3rd hand the population demographics have shifted considerably from post war Britain.
Put simply, I think many of us value the NHS and would pay more but it seems like diminishing returns unless the processes are fixed.
What I mean by that in a deliberate over-simplification is if I pay more then most of what I pay more NHS procurement will simply insist they their preferred suppliers pay more, some 50 yr old will get another round of IVF but the person needing the hip replacement will still be in the same queue.
This makes it an easy target for every Tory government time after time.
Best case scenario..
Tories get more seats than Labour, but not a majority.
Then what..? Labour still don't have position..
Apart from we pay far less for the NHS than most comparable systems. Even with the tories stupid " market" reforms in England is still a very efficient system
On the whole we pay far less for expensive stuff than fr example the US ( which is why the US want to make us pay more)
No 50 year old gets IVF on the NHS
Get rid of the stupid fake market and save 10% immediately
The round of nationalisation done in the 70’s was to protect the jobs of failed free market companies. Of course the tories even then were much better at marketing and blamed the rescue attempt rather than the actual cause, poor business practises and greed.
More accurately they were to protect jobs in failed industries....
Now look at the industries labour are saying could be nationalised, and ask are they actually operational without government subsidy, and if no, then the answer is clear that the current situation is a fraud, that taxpayers are subsidising shareholders of failed corporations, and that nationalisation is the only way to get value for the billions of subsidies being leached by those companies.
Lets look at the railway's? Back in BR day's I got a train in a dire emergency... the cheapest ticket was practically extortion and then when I went to get a buffet I got a environmentally friendly paper bag saying how much more efficient trains were than cars, buses and planes...
It struck me as ironic.. that the most expensive by far way to travel is "the most efficient"
A couple of years ago I was on a train overhearing a conversation by what seemed to be a load of BT execs... the part I remember was them complaining they were in a freemarket now and how they were competitive and having to provide value (I almost burst my sides laughing at that)
And Frankly privatisation of the energy and public transport has been an environmental disaster. The only way we can meet future environmental plans is to have an organised energy and transport systems that are based on the countries needs and not on shareholder profits.
Yet other European countries manage... France has had environmentally energy to spare with it's nuclear program. Somehow the Peage gets repaired etc.
So what are you proposing? Bring back the NCB? ( 😉 ) {I'm just making a point}
It's interesting that as a nationalised industry the NCB systematically destroyed plans to prevent being sued for subsidence where a private company would be held to (some) account.
all that said .....
I'm not against nationalisation of key infrastructure but going back to...
blamed the rescue attempt rather than the actual cause, poor business practises
The underlying problems are poor business practices... simply nationalising poor business practices will not improive them automatically.
The rise of the smaller parties means its very difficult for anyone to get a decent majority these days.
Good, perhaps the penny will eventually drop regarding coalition and pragmatism.
Poll trackers give averages over say 14 days. However this in a fast moving campaign can be pretty laggy, a lot has happened over the last fortnight. The latest poll from yesterday has 39/31% Con/Lab which is a bit closer than previously. It looks like BXP and LD are giving up support to Lab/Con - maybe Lab are picking up LD voters? If so, that could translate to seat gains since LD actually have some. How many Lab/LD marginals are held by LD?
On one hand the NHS haemorrhages cash as a matter of policy
Does it? My understanding was that it operates pretty efficiently.
Back in BR day’s I got a train in a dire emergency… the cheapest ticket was practically extortion
Whereas now it is extortion.
that the most expensive by far way to travel is “the most efficient”
Because, especially under the tories, it was actively undermined whilst other forms were subsidised.
Yet other European countries manage
You then go on to use France whose electricity industry is pretty much all government controlled.
The underlying problems are poor business practices
True. It is amazing how some of those problem industries once foreign owned and rid of the British managers do far better. Embarrassing though.
Apart from we pay far less for the NHS than most comparable systems. Even with the tories stupid ” market” reforms in England is still a very efficient system
On the whole we pay far less for expensive stuff than fr example the US ( which is why the US want to make us pay more)
Holding the US up as an example is not exactly a good start. According to the link later ...
This is the result of long term underfunding and political decision making by this and past
governments. The UK population is taxed less than most European countries.
The point I was making is there are 3 separate vectors ...and this makes it an easy target for each Tory government.
The NHS was the best health system in the world. This is no longer true. The UK lags behind most European Countries in treatment outcomes. The UK is 21 st out of 25 in breast cancer
survival, 20 th out of 23 rd for bowel cancer survival, and 19 th out of 31 in stroke survival. Most Eastern European countries do better than us. These figures come from the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The UK has fewer Doctors and Nurses/1000population than Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy,
the Czech Republic, and less than half the number of hospital beds/1000population than
France or Germany. The OECD reports that staff in UK hospitals are ‘rushed and without
time to care leaving them focussed on processes rather than patients’
True. It is amazing how some of those problem industries once foreign owned and rid of the British managers do far better. Embarrassing though.
To be fair this is Europe wide ... most or many ex nationalised industries seem to be better outside their original geography where they have thrown away the old process and started from scratch.
Holding the US up as an example is not exactly a good start
Considering our private sector tends to look more towards the US than towards Europe its normally a good plan in predicting what might happen.
When looking at this argument costs are rising and NHS will become unaffordable the thing that springs to mind is will this be solved by the private sector. How will, for example, compulsory insurance, solve this rising cost issue? What is it offering us to solve the problem. Or is it really just saying sod those who cant pay we cant save them all.
For the rest of your quotes. The takeaway here is our governments have a)underinvested and b)when they did bother investing wasted a lot of it. Thats not an argument for privatisation but better government.
Plus a lot of people are racist to some degree. They may not openly admit it but when given some options that appeal to their inner racist they like them. The options are made up and not based on fact of course but that is where the stupidity comes in and they just believe it.
Better known as populism.
Totally this.
I am hearing a lot about friends of friends and family members of people who are not frothing at the mouth, street fighting racists in the Classic image.
They tend more to be people whose lives aren’t working out as they want them to (generally due to circumstances that are now beyond their control, but weren’t in the past). Instinctively they find it easier to blame someone else than have a look in the mirror where most of the reasons lay.
Too many cars cramming into the town in the morning? It is due to Asians as they never walk anywhere and have eight cars to one family.
Job opportunities not there even though you have never really knuckled down either at school or later and did boring shit like professional qualifications? Positive discrimination is to blame. ‘They’ favour everyone but ‘real’ English people.
The media in this country is very very good at manipulating these people.
When Rees Mogg sounds off about Grenfell it is not a mistake. A lot of the people he is trying to court have an underlying feeling that the residents of Grenfell largely ‘should not be in this country anyway’.
These are the times we live in. This country is in managed decline. It makes it very easy to prey on people who think the world owes them a living.
For the rest of your quotes. The takeaway here is our governments have a)underinvested and b)when they did bother investing wasted a lot of it. Thats not an argument for privatisation but better government.
I'm most certainly not for privatisation of the NHS .... the problem is practically binary.
The Tory's under invest but Labour then invests but wastes a lot...
The Tory's will NEVER invest in the NHS ... so that leaves Labour actually trying to rationalise and invest more wisely however this is not something they are comfortable with saying.
binners
Subscriber
To be honest I’m quite happy with the situation as it stands, where the amount of damage any one party can do is severely curtailed. Its actually been quite funny watching ‘World King’ Joris Bohnsons impotent rage at his inability to actually do anything
The worst thing that can happen IMHO is anyone getting an overall majority. Nobody in UK politics could be trusted with one, on account of the fact that they’re all mental! Luckily there seems to be a vanishingly small chance of that happening
I think you're right there. My business partner likened the prospect of a Tory or Labour majority to a choice between being hanged or shot.
JP
Would sir like his huge shit sandwich on brown or white bread?
The underlying problems are poor business practices
British business mostly focus their efforts on cost cutting - which is always detrimental to the service or goods they provide.
British business mostly focus their efforts on cost cutting – which is always detrimental to the service or goods they provide.
Yep. Race to the bottom. Not really increased profit if all you're ever doing is cutting and cutting until you can't function.
I say this as business owner myself.
I've been on countless projects that have been buggered up by cost cutting.
Not really increased profit if all you’re ever doing is cutting and cutting until you can’t function.
Depends how much you are taking out and how short term your view is.
The Tory way is to grab it all now and screw the consequences.
We also have some pretty arcane Treasury rules where any savings delivered by Government departments can't be re-invested, but have to be returned to the Treasury and 'spend-to-save' initiatives are discouraged. I've worked on a number of Government programmes where we spend years developing solutions, applying for funding, co-investment from industry, getting it approved for 5-10 years with promise of more to find the whole thing abandoned after a couple of years because a new administration or minister wants to re-direct it elsewhere. The short-termism of recent Governments is what has deprived investment in many areas and in fact if it wasn't for EU money we'd be a lot worse.
stevextc
Member
Yet other European countries manage… France has had environmentally energy to spare with it’s nuclear program.
EDF are an interesting example to choose. Mostly because it's not privatised. Much like the trains, when we talk about privatisation in the UK it often means "nationalisation, just with a different nation than us". I mean, I like the French but exactly what is it that makes us think we couldn't possibly run a public nuclear power industry ourselves but the French can run it for us? So much so that we nationalised British Energy then sold it to the French.
And trains, people say Britain can't run a nationalised train service but we can have Abelio, Kelios and Arriva run chunks of ours at a profit- why are the Dutch, French and Germans so much better at nationalised rail that they can run ours and we can't?
It's a weird bit of british exceptionalism to think that we suck at these things and that just about every european government would be better at running our critical services than we can be.
Can I just jump into to say todays headlines where the Tories are being attacked for not responding to the flooding promptly is really ripping my knitting.
All parties need to be responding better to anthropomorphic climate change, the individual weather event is a passing side show.
Unimpressed.
Can I just jump into to say todays headlines where the Tories are being attacked for not responding to the flooding promptly is really ripping my knitting.
Well, the Tories since in Government have cut Environment Agency staff by 20% - reap what you sow
Well done Tim Walker. We just need his party, and the party of the candidate he stood down for, to wake the **** up.
As today’s reports of HS2 costs set to escalate yet again (presently 88 billion) it seems the Tory party is intensely relaxed ( to borrow the Abu Labour parlance) about spiffing money up the wall (to borrow the Borisism) as long as it’s going to their mates.
Rip the floor out from underneath the public sector, but when it comes to your mates multi-million quid bills for ‘consultancy work’ that’s all fine.
Remind me how many tens of millions of public money he spent on his ‘garden bridge’ that the evaporated into the ether?
I don’t think Johnson is keen on HS2 at all, is he? It’s a vote loser in his own seat, and plenty of other Conservative seats. Hopefully he’ll look long term and push ahead with it still.
Well done Tim Walker. We just need his party, and the party of the candidate he stood down for, to wake the **** up.
Don't know why he did this before the Thursday cut off as I understand - allowing another candidate to be selected?
(I think there's a battle going at national level versus local level here with the selection of candidates.)
but Labour then invests but wastes a lot…
Cite? Evidence? In my time in the NHS nothing has wasted ( that I have seen) anything like as much money as the tories fake market. that has added at least 10% to costs for zero benefit - its actually a detriment as it makes strategic planning more difficult