Snap General Election?

[anonymous-user]

Funkycoldribena said:

If I don't like any of them, surely I can moan?

I spoiled my paper last time but probably won't bother this time.

[anonymous-user]

Nothing other than 'no' against all of them other than the Labour candidate whose address was somewhere in London.

I just put 'thanks for making the effort to find a candidate who understands local concerns' or something like that.

We are in a massively safe Tory seat so they may as well not bother and just mark it blue without the fuss.

[andy_s]

skahigh said:

Fastdruid said:

Winning the Election is just not important to Labour any more.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017...

IMO they are going to be absolutely decimated.

Fascinating read, thanks for sharing.

Ditto

[Thorodin]

I thought the figure on the side of the bus and the nearby accompanying text had been adequately explained, particularly for the benefit of the refusenick remainers that just plain will not accept the use of plain English. To be mildly charitable, maybe they only speak in cave painting emoticons and multi-syllabic discourse is foreign to them. I won't bore with the actualite but please, do us the favour of being able to read - it at least makes some of your arguments funny.

[funkyrobot]

desolate said:

Nothing other than 'no' against all of them other than the Labour candidate whose address was somewhere in London.

I just put 'thanks for making the effort to find a candidate who understands local concerns' or something like that.

We are in a massively safe Tory seat so they may as well not bother and just mark it blue without the fuss.

I'm thinking of adding my own name to the voting card and ticking a box next to it.

Might as well. My vote counts for 0.018% or something like that and I live in a Conservative stronghold.

[Likes Fast Cars]

Core-Blimey pledging a million homes to be built as council housing .... the British Bolshevik Collective is giving him masses of airtime this evening. Where is the money coming from Jezza?

Before that (5 minutes ago) he was calling for a political solution in Syria.

[mx-6]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Core-Blimey pledging a million homes to be built as council housing .... the British Bolshevik Collective is giving him masses of airtime this evening. Where is the money coming from Jezza?

If pressed they'll probably say that it (along with about 20 other spending promises) will be funded by binning off the planned corporation tax cut, it seems to be the stock answer.

Edited by mx-6 on Thursday 27th April 16:33

[turbobloke]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Core-Blimey pledging a million homes to be built as council housing .... the British Bolshevik Collective is giving him masses of airtime this evening. Where is the money coming from Jezza?

He's infected with populism, like botulism but the toxin is restricted to desperate wrinkly political leaders.

Four bank holidays, pay rises to public sector workers, now he's gone straight as the Crow flies for special homes where Union bosses on fat cat salaries can save on their rent at taxpayer expense - this is a bad dose and after all that it won't work. Oh dear never mind what a shame.

[MarshPhantom]

[MarshPhantom]

El stovey said:

mx-6 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Or Conservative supporters are just sensible middle of the road people and are not right wingers?

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying that all Conservative voters are "right wing", I usually vote that way. I'm saying that those that have views that are what we could surely all agree are to the political right seem to be satisfied with the Conservative at present.

She s engaging in both some lefty and right wing policies though. Getting rid of charitable status for private schools, talk of shared society, talk of bridging the wealth gap between London and the north.

Labours lurch to the left has left her with a big area to get voters from. I expect many middle ground floating and former labour voters, people who voted for Blair perhaps will like the sound of May.

I'm not convinced people on the more right end of the conservatives will support her long term, but in the short term, Brexit will no doubt make May more popular with more right wing voters as she has to make Britain more competitive with corporate tax cuts and perhaps less regulation.

I expect more right wing voters will like her positive stance on meeting with Trump early on perhaps rekindling the warm glow they got from seeing Thatcher and Reagan. I wonder if they squint a little and imagine they have Maggie back at the helm.

Edited by El stovey on Thursday 27th April 13:10

I think somebody wants to be the next Jo Cox.

[turbobloke]

mx-6 said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

Core-Blimey pledging a million homes to be built as council housing .... the British Bolshevik Collective is giving him masses of airtime this evening. Where is the money coming from Jezza?

If pressed they'll probably say that it (along with about 20 other spending promises) will be funded by binning off the planned corporation tax rise, it seems to be the stock answer.

They've got form. Guido reckoned Miliband spent the banker bonus tax ten times over.

Here's a fun quiz.

Did the Labour Party say they'd spend the proceeds of the mansion tax on
a) reviving the 10p tax rate
b) the NHS
c) the deficit
d) all of the above

Answers on a postcard to Neil Kinnock who didn't make any of the pledges but knows a thing ot two about raking in the loot.

[mx-6]

MarshPhantom said:

Yes debt interest payments have gone up as has the national debt, what do you propose that we as a national do about it? Cut spending on welfare and public services?

[sidicks]

MarshPhantom said:

Yes, Labour increased debt significantly (during a period of strong economic growth), hid further debt off balance sheet, and left a massive structural deficit when they left office meaning that even with what is laughably called 'austerity measures', the debt was inevitably going to increase further.

Is that really the point you were trying to make?

[mx-6]

sidicks said:

Yes, Labour increased debt significantly (during a period of strong economic growth), hid further debt off balance sheet, and left a massive structural deficit when they left office meaning that even with what is laughably called 'austerity measures', the debt was inevitably going to increase further.

Is that really the point you were trying to make?

Your not wrong as such and New Labour could have spent less, though I'd say the global financial crisis, which no-one in the political establishment anticipated, was the largest factor in the resulting budget deficit.

But, for some on the left to complain about "Tory austerity" on the hand and the national debt on the other doesn't add up or make sence.

[sidicks]

mx-6 said:

Your not wrong as such and New Labour could have spent less, though I'd say the global financial crisis, which no-one in the political establishment anticipated, was the largest factor in the resulting budget deficit.

But, for some on the left to complain about "Tory austerity" on the hand and the national debt on the other doesn't add up or make sence.

Not really. Economies go in cycles, always have, always will. The key point is to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' to provide a cushion when the rains come.

The Labour approach was to spunk money up the wall, borrow more and spunk that up the wall too, despite there being excess tax receipts to support investment.

[mx-6]

sidicks said:

Not really. Economies go in cycles, always have, always will. The key point is to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' to provide a cushion when the rains come.

The Labour approach was to spunk money up the wall, borrow more and spunk that up the will too, despite there being excess tax receipts to support investment.

Cycles yes, but we're talking about what was a massive recession/depression, the worse since the '30's. The whole financial system was close to collaspe if you remember, Brown rightly spent big money propping up the banks rather than let the whole economy fall over.

[ralphrj]

sidicks said:

MarshPhantom said:

Yes, Labour increased debt significantly (during a period of strong economic growth), hid further debt off balance sheet, and left a massive structural deficit when they left office meaning that even with what is laughably called 'austerity measures', the debt was inevitably going to increase further.

Is that really the point you were trying to make?

Those figures are very old and outdated. You can also see that most of those increases are estimates rather than actuals.

UK debt interest payments actually peaked in 2011/12 and have fallen since.

For example: Actual UK debt interest payments were £45.1bn in 2015/16 not the estimated £57bn shown on the chart.

[Robertj21a]

sidicks said:

Not really. Economies go in cycles, always have, always will. The key point is to 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' to provide a cushion when the rains come.

The Labour approach was to spunk money up the wall, borrow more and spunk that up the wall too, despite there being excess tax receipts to support investment.

Any reason at all why they wouldn't carry on in the same way if they were ever re-elected ? Presumably, leopards don't change their spots.

[sidicks]

mx-6 said:

Cycles yes, but we're talking about what was a massive recession/depression, the worse since the '30's. The whole financial system was close to collaspe if you remember, Brown rightly spent big money propping up the banks rather than let the whole economy fall over.

The money spent propping up the banks was negligible compared to the debt that was piled on before and after.

A recession is part of the normal economic cycle - you need to plan for this unless you think you've abolished boom and bust...

[anonymous-user]

mx-6 said:

I see he's been saying all sorts today, they should keep him locked in a cupboard until 9th June.

Are people actually getting threatened or challenged to fights in Asda car parks.

I don't mean to derail this excellent thread but that's hilarious. Is it the thread about Stockholm?