Election 2019

[Steve vRS]

kuro68k said:

I really hope Boris doesn't get a majority. Really dreading another 5+ years of this brexit st.

People need to look beyond brexit. Boris is a menace, and things like the NHS and our sovereignty are more important than brexit. Once the NHS is sold off and a bad deal done with the US it will be very, very hard to undo.

You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone. Not so with brexit and a bad Boris deal.

That was part of my thought process. But I was then if the opinion that the costs in nationalising swathes of industry and also ‘giving’ 10% of large corporations to their staff were a bigger threat.

It really is a sh!t choice.

[stongle]

vaud said:

janesmith1950 said:

We were accosted outside our children's primary school at collection time by some Labour canvassers last week. They got quite aggressive with us when we failed to engage with them, telling us how awful the school is without the extra funding Labour would provide.

The school is fine and I just don't understand what people think they will achieve by doorstepping parents when they're going about their business.

Edited by janesmith1950 on Wednesday 11th December 08:09

They have been targeting a lot of schools locally.

There really isn't a depth that the Labour campaigners won't plummet too. If you to go to a political rally fiber, doorstepping people at schools not acceptable.

An interestingly lazy (or dare I say it politicised), peace on the BEEB this morning. Parents school donations exacerbating inequality. Not really a shocker, but the piece is carefully worded to suggest its grossly unfair. Well it would be, if you cannot be arsed to set up a PTA. One school lamenting its fate of poor donations of 670quid in 2018, says hmmm perhaps we need a Parent Teacher Association to help out. If you don't already have one of them, you are a special sort of muppet. If you cannot be bothered to put into place the apparatus to raise parent donations, don't be surprised if you come up with fk all.

The throw away at the end - that since 2009, funding is down 8% in real terms - is the real issue; but that's a dicey one to argue...

The media seems to be increasingly dumbing down, or worst case weaponising nonsense. I know quality costs (a basic Bloomberg license for us is near 20k per man), but they may as well start renaming news sites: BEEBook, Financial Lies, Janet and John drop Acid (The Mirror) etc

It's no wonder that social media is screwed....

[otolith]

kuro68k said:

You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone.

That may be true of the policies. It's not true for the consequences of the policies.

[amusingduck]

kuro68k said:

People need to look beyond brexit. Boris is a menace, and things like the NHS and our sovereignty are more important than brexit. Once the NHS is sold off and a bad deal done with the US it will be very, very hard to undo.

Oh wonderful, finally somebody who can explain to me how that works. By what mechanism is the NHS going to be 'sold off', ditto preventing the NHS from sourcing drugs from non-US companies/forcing NHS to overpay?

You're not just repeating things you don't understand, are you? That'd be mighty silly

[Frank7]

kuro68k said:

I really hope Boris doesn't get a majority. Really dreading another 5+ years of this brexit st.

People need to look beyond brexit. Boris is a menace, and things like the NHS and our sovereignty are more important than brexit. Once the NHS is sold off and a bad deal done with the US it will be very, very hard to undo.

You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone. Not so with brexit and a bad Boris deal.

That’s your opinion, and fortunately in our democracy, you have every right to both hold and express it.
However, there are others, (me for example), who would rather have 5+ years of Boris and his gang, even if they are still prevaricating about Brexit and/or the NHS, than the dreadful prospect of 5 years of Crypto-Communism under the other motley crew.

[Digga]

otolith said:

kuro68k said:

You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone.

That may be true of the policies. It's not true for the consequences of the policies.

All of Corbyns election promised are based on a catastrophically flawed assumption; that he can increase the tax take on a static GDP.

I am in no doubt that, were he elected:

1. Huge sums of capital would flee (hence the pound dropping this morning on the threat of a hung parliament, let alone Labour majority). The UK has no capital controls to prevent this.
2. Businesses would be wound up.
3. Jobs would be cut
4. GDP would drop
5. The above would mean the tax take, if the spending when ahead, would represent an unprecedented and unsustainably high %age of GDP.
6. Interest rates would rocket.
7. The pound would drop.
8. The UK would be going, cap in hand, to the IMF as it did under Labour in the 1970s: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/...

[bloomen]

Steve vRS said:

That was part of my thought process. But I was then if the opinion that the costs in nationalising swathes of industry and also ‘giving’ 10% of large corporations to their staff were a bigger threat.

It really is a sh!t choice.

All the choices are pitiful and all of them mean a generation of decay and degradation.

Get Jeremy and a bunch of clueless agitators who've never been anywhere near the real world have a whole country to play out their adolescent ideas.

Get Johnson and a bunch of clueless exploiters who otherwise would never have gotten within a billion miles of government get to insert their sweaty fantasies all the way up our rectums.

Meanwhile the actual adults are sniping from the sidelines. How'd it wind up like this?

[Teppic]

kuro68k said:

You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone.

If you think we've had 'austerity' now, that's NOTHING compared to what is going to be needed to sort Corbyn and McDonnell's mess out in 5 years if they get in.

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

Oh wonderful, finally somebody who can explain to me how that works. By what mechanism is the NHS going to be 'sold off', ditto preventing the NHS from sourcing drugs from non-US companies/forcing NHS to overpay?

Well when we adopt US patent rules on medicine we can't just buy cheaper generic versions as we do now. That's what patents are for, to stop you doing that.

Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.

[stongle]

Digga said:

All of Corbyns election promised are based on a catastrophically flawed assumption; that he can increase the tax take on a static GDP.

I am in no doubt that, were he elected:

1. Huge sums of capital would flee (hence the pound dropping this morning on the threat of a hung parliament, let alone Labour majority). The UK has no capital controls to prevent this.
2. Businesses would be wound up.
3. Jobs would be cut
4. GDP would drop
5. The above would mean the tax take, if the spending when ahead, would represent an unprecedented and unsustainably high %age of GDP.
6. Interest rates would rocket.
7. The pound would drop.
8. The UK would be going, cap in hand, to the IMF as it did under Labour in the 1970s: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/...

Careful sunshine, Momentum in meltdown:

[Halb]

kuro68k said:

Well when we adopt US patent rules on medicine we can't just buy cheaper generic versions as we do now. That's what patents are for, to stop you doing that.

Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.

that will happen under Bojo?

[anonymous-user]

Teppic said:

If you think we've had 'austerity' now, that's NOTHING compared to what is going to be needed to sort Corbyn and McDonnell's mess out in 5 years if they get in.

I remember when people said all that about New Labour, and we actually went into a pretty long period of fiscal stability until the global financial crisis hit. At the very least it was better than the regular boom and bust cycles under the Tories.

[Digga]

bloomen said:

All the choices are pitiful and all of them mean a generation of decay and degradation.

Get Jeremy and a bunch of clueless agitators who've never been anywhere near the real world have a whole country to play out their adolescent ideas.

Get Johnson and a bunch of clueless exploiters who otherwise would never have gotten within a billion miles of government get to insert their sweaty fantasies all the way up our rectums.

Meanwhile the actual adults are sniping from the sidelines. How'd it wind up like this?

All the choices have a whiff about them, but the key issue is economic. Labour will destroy the economy and, without that, all the promises of welfare in the world turn to dust.

It's a st choice, but where we are. I do not think there is a more pragmatic way of putting it.

[philv]

Steve vRS said:

kuro68k said:

I really hope Boris doesn't get a majority. Really dreading another 5+ years of this brexit st.

People need to look beyond brexit. Boris is a menace, and things like the NHS and our sovereignty are more important than brexit. Once the NHS is sold off and a bad deal done with the US it will be very, very hard to undo.

You might not like Labour but there will be another election in 5 years time when it can all be undone. Not so with brexit and a bad Boris deal.

That was part of my thought process. But I was then if the opinion that the costs in nationalising swathes of industry and also ‘giving’ 10% of large corporations to their staff were a bigger threat.

It really is a sh!t choice.

How is it a tough choice?
Vote conservative and carry out a democratically voted for brexit.
Stable economic policies.

vote labour, new ref votes for eu, scotland, bye bye trident?, and the i installation of a marxist regime that alighs itself with our enemirs, and is intent on the destruction of capitalism.

The high relative standard of living we have in the uk is through capitalism.
We are doing better than most as a country.
So you really think it is a good idea to go back to policies from the 70s and try to implement marxism.

How is that a difficult decision?

Oh, and i am a remainer.
But for democracy it is important to implement democratic decisions.
It's a slippery slope.
We are on that slope potentially sliding towards a marxist government, with anti Semitic leanings and an obvious bitterness towards any sort of wealth.

If people can't see the danger signs, it is staggering.

As a population we will all suffer if we make bad decisions.

Trying to make out that labour are the reasonable choice shows you are trolling, a labour activist or nuts imho.

Edited by philv on Wednesday 11th December 10:18

[kev1974]

kuro68k said:

amusingduck said:

Oh wonderful, finally somebody who can explain to me how that works. By what mechanism is the NHS going to be 'sold off', ditto preventing the NHS from sourcing drugs from non-US companies/forcing NHS to overpay?

Well when we adopt US patent rules on medicine we can't just buy cheaper generic versions as we do now. That's what patents are for, to stop you doing that.

Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.

But that's not "selling off the NHS" is it. It's just being hobbled by incompetent procurement.

[booboise blueboys]

Johnson is a coward. Hiding in a fridge and looking like a complete mess. Why can't he smarten up?

Its a no from me and probably most of the country on Thursday.

[anonymous-user]

Steve vRS said:

That was part of my thought process. But I was then if the opinion that the costs in nationalising swathes of industry and also ‘giving’ 10% of large corporations to their staff were a bigger threat.

Those "costs" are really investments though, because those industries generate revenue. In fact as long as the revenue covers the cost of borrowing the money to buy them, which at the moment is extremely low, it's a net positive for the government. Not to mention the huge benefits to us, the customers.

They aren't giving away 10% of companies either, the rule will just be that over time they have to offer shares to staff and move towards that goal. It's worked extremely well in places like Germany.

[Vanden Saab]

kuro68k said:

amusingduck said:

Oh wonderful, finally somebody who can explain to me how that works. By what mechanism is the NHS going to be 'sold off', ditto preventing the NHS from sourcing drugs from non-US companies/forcing NHS to overpay?

Well when we adopt US patent rules on medicine we can't just buy cheaper generic versions as we do now. That's what patents are for, to stop you doing that.

Shocking that people don't understand basic stuff like this and are willingly going to destroy the best thing we have in this country because of it.

As you are so well informed on the 'basic stuff' with regard to patents for medicines can you confirm the difference in patent length between the USA and EU?

[Digga]

kuro68k said:

Steve vRS said:

That was part of my thought process. But I was then if the opinion that the costs in nationalising swathes of industry and also ‘giving’ 10% of large corporations to their staff were a bigger threat.

Those "costs" are really investments though, because those industries generate revenue. In fact as long as the revenue covers the cost of borrowing the money to buy them, which at the moment is extremely low, it's a net positive for the government. Not to mention the huge benefits to us, the customers.

They aren't giving away 10% of companies either, the rule will just be that over time they have to offer shares to staff and move towards that goal. It's worked extremely well in places like Germany.

The cost of either the government or private sector entities borrowing money would leap, almost overnight, on a Labour win.

Then you have the serviceability of the debt, which you cannot base on a fixed GDP, because almost every way you look, the taxation plans will cause a decline in both GDP and tax take.

We'd be on the 'phone to the IMF in pretty short order.

[vaud]

kuro68k said:

They aren't giving away 10% of companies either, the rule will just be that over time they have to offer shares to staff and move towards that goal. It's worked extremely well in places like Germany.

Offer staff shares they can buy, or mandate gifting of shares to employees?