General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

because it isn't.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-the-gaps-in-labours-spending-plans

Suggests a 58 billion gap in labours finances.

Smaller than the cost of Brexit, which is the Tories only policy, and which delivers nothing except feelings of sovereignty and warm fuzzies for xenophobes.

Labours spending delivers on Health, Education, pensions, working week etc. etc.

Easy choice.

prawnsambo

Aegir wrote: »

Arklow Shipping, the backer behind Seaborne might disagree there.

Seaborne had been in negotiations with the two local authorities for two years about re-establishing a ferry service.

Arklow Shipping had no contract with Seaborne and were not their 'backer'.

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

Conservative lead: 9.2pts

Chgs. w/ 08 Dec

So Corbyn will lead Labour to their 3rd election defeat against a deeply divided Tory party.

He is unquestionably the worst Labour leader in the last 40 years and he needs to resign immediately following the results.

ancapailldorcha

Chips Lovell wrote: »

The one thing i'd query there is the line "It was quite obvious from what Johnson said afterwards that he hadn’t understood what he was agreeing to". I think it's more the case that he didn't care what he was agreeing to, and hence didn't bother too much with understanding. Being able to say he had a deal he could spin as a positive at that point was far more important than the content of that deal.

To be honest, I've always gotten the impression that he is an extremely lazy politician. Tim Shipman's All Out War covers this well during the 2016 Conservative leadership campaign where he details how Johnson put in very little effort and so ended up with his closest supporters deserting him.

johnnyskeleton

Aegir wrote: »

so increasing debt is not a justification for Austerity?

Deleted User wrote: »

Austerity doesn't work.

You get that increasing debt is a bad thing, yes? And under the Tories austerity, debt has increased.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ditto for the most recent crises - Global recession. Yet you want to blame the UK LP. Gosh - how powerful you must think them. They even crashed our economy and here was us thinking it happened under FF.

Thatcher decimated the North of England in the 1980s - shall we talk about the Tories wanting to bring us back to the mass unemployment of those days?
Shall we stop whinging about events 30/40 years ago in a very different world and look at what Tory austerity policies have done to the UK now - or is that too relevant?

Mod note:

This is indeed an interesting theoretical / economic policy discussion. If it weren't for the fact that the UK is having its election today, I'd say plough on. But since there is likely to be lots of election specific posts today (I assume - maybe people have lost interest in UK politics by now).

So I'd invite any one of you to start a separate thread on the topic of austerity policies to discuss whether they work, whether they are a result of the previous government's actions, or whether there is another solution available.

And then maybe we will keep this thread free for more proximate election issues

I do hope that any residents in the UK don't waste their vote.

The Conservative Party are the only party pledged to delivering on the 2016 referendum result. With even more investment into the NHS, schools, and reduced crime; controlling borders, maintaining culture and identity, restoring our coastal fishing communities, and being able to have complete power to generate laws, control over monies, and cutting taxes. A positive, upbeat agenda that works.

With the Labour vote, you get stupendously high spending, increased taxes, a second referendum, a Scottish referendum, a nod to anti-Semitism, and business and wealth leaving the country; a return to some socialist Marxist utopia that will never exist in reality, and which will do long-term damage to the UK - both economically, democratically, and - in terms of foreign policy - a complete disaster with Diane Abbott leading the charge. A negative, damaging agenda that doesn't work.

That's why the Conservative Party are winning. Let's hope no votes are wasted to build Johnson's majority as high as possible.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I do hope that any residents in the UK don't waste their vote.

Cast your vote in favour of the Conservative Party, who are the only party pledged to delivering on the 2016 referendum result. With even more investment into the NHS, schools, and reduced crime; controlling borders, maintaining culture and identity, restoring our coastal fishing communities, and being able to have complete power to generate laws, control over monies, and cutting taxes. A positive, upbeat agenda that works.

With the Labour vote, you get stupendously high spending, increased taxes, a second referendum, a Scottish referendum, a nod to anti-Semitism, and business and wealth leaving the country; a return to some socialist Marxist utopia that will never exist in reality, and which will do long-term damage to the UK - both economically, democratically, and - in terms of foreign policy - a complete disaster with Diane Abbott leading the charge. A negative, damaging agenda that doesn't work.

That's why the Conservative Party are winning. Let's hope no votes are wasted to build Johnson's majority as high as possible.

Patronising people and offering nothing more than soundbites is a weak argument. You've not once offered a single, logical, positive reason to vote Conservative.

For the reasons I outlined earlier, I voted Labour.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Size of freight and passenger ferries nowadays can't be accommodated. It's only got a 7m depth channel and they started dredging it this year, but then it was put on hold. There are actually no deep water ports in the UK that can handle the type of super ferry that dock in Dublin.

Harwich could, but you are comparing apples and oranges though. The UK doesn't need superferries like the one from Dublin, because the crossings aren't as long and there are a lot more of them.

there are over 30 ferries a day on the Dover-Calais route alone, compared with a maximum of six on the Dublin-Holyhead route. That is ignoring the 15 trains per day from London to Paris.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

Arklow Shipping, the backer behind Seaborne might disagree there.

Seaborne had been in negotiations with the two local authorities for two years about re-establishing a ferry service.

The government awarded a contract but only once the company proved it was viable, which would make a major difference in them in sourcing funding from backers, it effectively lowered the risk on their investment.

It was a good idea, but the negative publicity scared off any potential investors and collapsed the whole thing. In a non Brexit world, there is a good chance it would have gotten off the ground, but that ship has now sailed, if you'll excuse the pun.

That is not strictly correct.

1. The company putting forward the proposal had never filed company accounts. Its terms of contract were copied from a Pizza delivery company.

2. The only maritime experience that the directors had was operating some kind on anti-piracy protection off the East African coast. If I recall correctly, there was some legal question about the directors, but I am not sure how significant that was - it might have been financial.

3. The Arklow connection was a bulk shipping company that owned no ferries and had no ferry experience. Their exact connection never became clear.

4. Ramsgate was a silted up port that was not suitable for the ferries proposed. The docks were too narrow to accommodate the proposed ferries. They was a significant need for dredging the port that would take significant time and not be ready by the required time.

5. The Mayor of Ostend appeared on TV saying he knew nothing of the proposed route or the viability of it.

So we have a newly formed company with no experience of shipping or ferries, that owned no ferries, nor had access to ferries, proposing to operate from a defunct port, with the Ostend port not contacted as to the viability of the route getting a significant contract with no oversight or proper qualification of the bidder.

The requirement for the bidder to prove it was viable only became a condition after the scandal became evident. Grayling failing again.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I do hope that any residents in the UK don't waste their vote.

Agreed. Do a bit of research and see which Opposition candidate has the best chance to beat the Tory in your constituency. No point in voting Green with your conscience if it enables Brexit and 5 more years of Tory misrule.

johnnyskeleton

facehugger99 wrote: »

So Corbyn will lead Labour to their 3rd election defeat against a deeply divided Tory party.

He is unquestionably the worst Labour leader in the last 40 years and he needs to resign immediately following the results.

Corbyn led them in 2017 and this one. 2015 was Ed Milliband.

If you were to say that Corbyn and Labour currently can't seem to score an open goal, I'd agree with you. But I'm not sure that he is the worst Labour leader in the last 40 years. If you measure it on electoral success, in 2017 he has won more than Gordon Browne (2010) and Ed Milliband (2015), and even based on the predictions of Labour losing 40-50 seats he will still be on a par with 2015.

In terms of morality, I don't think history will forget Tony Blairs ill judged invasion of Iraq any time soon. Truth be told, I don't think Blair himself can forget it.

In terms of economic policy, I'm not sure he is really any different to how Labour were prior to the ascendancy of New Labour in the 1990s.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

I do hope that any residents in the UK don't waste their vote.

Cast your vote in favour of the Conservative Party, who are the only party pledged to delivering on the 2016 referendum result.

So when the results come in and a clear majority of people voted for parties that do not support Brexit by any means will you accept that it's maybe not exactly what the people want after all?

Think the best any of your numerous polls that you've posted has shown is a 55/45 split in favour of Not Brexit parties. The majority of the UK do not want Johnson as PM.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I do hope that any residents in the UK don't waste their vote.

Cast your vote in favour of the Conservative Party, who are the only party pledged to delivering on the 2016 referendum result. With even more investment into the NHS, schools, and reduced crime; controlling borders, maintaining culture and identity, restoring our coastal fishing communities, and being able to have complete power to generate laws, control over monies, and cutting taxes. A positive, upbeat agenda that works.

With the Labour vote, you get stupendously high spending, increased taxes, a second referendum, a Scottish referendum, a nod to anti-Semitism, and business and wealth leaving the country; a return to some socialist Marxist utopia that will never exist in reality, and which will do long-term damage to the UK - both economically, democratically, and - in terms of foreign policy - a complete disaster with Diane Abbott leading the charge. A negative, damaging agenda that doesn't work.

That's why the Conservative Party are winning. Let's hope no votes are wasted to build Johnson's majority as high as possible.

Diane Abbott or Priti Patel? Abbott every day of the week for me. Compassion over right wing complete absence of empathy to vulnerable sections of society evetytime.

We know of labours antisemitism issues, they have had maximum exposure and publicity. But can you tell me how many labour candidates in this election are currently being investigated for antisemitism? I know of at least 3 tory candidates currently being investigated for antisemitism.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Ramsgate was a port for hovercraft, not ferries. It is silted up.

odd looking hovercraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Lucky_Star_(1976)

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Cast your vote in favour of the Conservative Party

Mod note:

Per the charter:

Political Canvassing

Do not advertise your party on here in posts. This is not allowed. Any posts deemed to be solely for the purpose of advertising a party many earn people a ban.

You may of course state that you are voting for the Conservatives, and are welcome to explain your reasons why and discuss them, but naked Canvassing is not permitted.

liamtech

robinph wrote: »

So when the results come in and a clear majority of people voted for parties that do not support Brexit by any means will you accept that it's maybe not exactly what the people want after all?

Think the best any of your numerous polls that you've posted has shown is a 55/45 split in favour of Not Brexit parties. The majority of the UK do not want Johnson as PM.

Even if the Torys win, i could see the popular % vote being for Remain parties - thats what you get with FPTP

votesmart2019.com is the only hope for stopping the Tories - just hope people use it i guess

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Arklow Shipping had no contract with Seaborne and were not their 'backer'.

I didn't say they had a contract, but when the CEO writes to you, telling you this (Taken from your article)

Arklow Shipping owns and operates a fleet of 55 dry bulk vessels from two bases, its home base in Co Wicklow and Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

The company’s managing director James A Tyrell wrote to UK transport secretary Chris Grayling last month, saying the firm had talks with Seaborne over the previous 12 months. He said it intended to finance the purchase two vessels to operate a route between Ramsgate and Ostend and to buy a stake in Seaborne.

“I consider that Seaborne’s plans to deliver a new service to facilitate trade following from the UK’s departure from the EU are both viable and deliverable,” Mr Tyrell told the British secretary in his letter.

“I will be working closely with the team at Seaborne to ensure that they have appropriate support from Arklow Shipping to deliver on their commitments to Her Majesty’s Government.”

That would tend to indicate a form of backing, would it not?

ambro25

Aegir wrote: »

I didn't say they had a contract, but when the CEO writes to you, telling you this (Taken from your article)

That would tend to indicate a form of backing, would it not?

An intention to back, held for however long (12 months acc.to your quote), is not "backing".

It becomes backing, once the ink dries on the shareholding agreement (or JV agreement, or ...).

Until then, in terms of due diligence, it's as unicorny as £350m painted in font size 120 on the side of a double decker.

This Seaborne affair was a complete car crash of a public market allocation process, I can't believe anyone would waste even 5 minutes trying to defend the government's handling of it (still less so anyone paying tax in the UK, because in terms of "spaffing tax money up a wall" I've rarely seen better examples than this...and I've seen a few).

A Dub in Glasgo

liamtech wrote: »

Id be amazed if the Tories get more than 1 or 2 seats in scotland

The Tories will get a lot more than that, they have successfuly harnessed the Lib Dem and Labour voters who put unionism ahead of anti-Brexit / progressive politics

johnnyskeleton

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories will get a lot more than that, they have successfuly harnessed the Lib Dem and Labour voters who put unionism ahead of Brexit / progressive politics

I'm not so sure. Losing Ruth Davidson was a big blow and even her coming out and campaigning might not help matters.

One of the many curious things about UK politics is that the majority of Scotland will elect SNP to parliament, but won't vote for their main (single issue almost) policy in a referendum. It's the opposite to the way the people of the UK voted for Brexit, but won't give the Brexit party any seats.

I guess they like talking about Scottish Independence, but don't quite want to push the button just yet!

robinph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Losing Ruth Davidson was a big blow and even her coming out and campaigning might not help matters.

One of the many curious things about UK politics is that the majority of Scotland will elect SNP to parliament, but won't vote for their main (single issue almost) policy in a referendum. It's the opposite to the way the people of the UK voted for Brexit, but won't give the Brexit party any seats.

I guess they like talking about Scottish Independence, but don't quite want to push the button just yet!

Didn't the SNP get bigger by having more than one actual policy and showing an ability to actually run things for the good of the population of Scotland? Whilst the Brexit party has only one policy and they can't even figure that out properly.

beggars_bush

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is not strictly correct.

1. The company putting forward the proposal had never filed company accounts. Its terms of contract were copied from a Pizza delivery company.

2. The only maritime experience that the directors had was operating some kind on anti-piracy protection off the East African coast. If I recall correctly, there was some legal question about the directors, but I am not sure how significant that was - it might have been financial.

3. The Arklow connection was a bulk shipping company that owned no ferries and had no ferry experience. Their exact connection never became clear.

4. Ramsgate was a silted up port that was not suitable for the ferries proposed. The docks were too narrow to accommodate the proposed ferries. They was a significant need for dredging the port that would take significant time and not be ready by the required time.

5. The Mayor of Ostend appeared on TV saying he knew nothing of the proposed route or the viability of it.

So we have a newly formed company with no experience of shipping or ferries, that owned no ferries, nor had access to ferries, proposing to operate from a defunct port, with the Ostend port not contacted as to the viability of the route getting a significant contract with no oversight or proper qualification of the bidder.

The requirement for the bidder to prove it was viable only became a condition after the scandal became evident. Grayling failing again.

yeah, but get Brexit done. etc

it was obviously a bunch of lads well connected to the Tories going to make a bunch of money out of the whole thing

Bannasidhe

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Diane Abbott or Priti Patel? Abbott every day of the week for me. Compassion over right wing complete absence of empathy to vulnerable sections of society evetytime.

I was a member of the LP in Hackney when Diane Abbot was selected - I didn't like her as a person, I voted against her nomination, my experience of trying to work with her when I was a community worker in the borough was ... unpleasant... I genuinely thought she would be a terrible MP for her constituency.
I was wrong. Diane Abbot has been an excellent MP for the people of her constituency - which is why they keep electing her with a massive majority.
She has faced a tirade of appalling racist and sexist abuse in the decades she has been in the HoC and keeps on representing the people who elected her.
Yes, she has made some gaffs - but not as many as people like to claim particularly when you consider she has been an MP since 1987.

Pritti Patel - in her 9 years as an MP she has managed to display an impressive ability to constantly put her foot in her mouth (using food shortages as leverage against Ireland/Local Authorities are responsible for poverty etc etc), has displayed all the compassion of a scorpion (one assumes... hopes... none of her less well off constituents are even in need of help from their MP) and was forced to resign as International Development Secretary in 2017 following secret meetings in Israel.

beggars_bush

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Losing Ruth Davidson was a big blow and even her coming out and campaigning might not help matters.

One of the many curious things about UK politics is that the majority of Scotland will elect SNP to parliament, but won't vote for their main (single issue almost) policy in a referendum. It's the opposite to the way the people of the UK voted for Brexit, but won't give the Brexit party any seats.

I guess they like talking about Scottish Independence, but don't quite want to push the button just yet!

I think a lot of Scots know that the country isn't viable on its own due to the poor tax base, now that the oil and gas have been plundered

however, if the Uk leave the EU the Scots might realise that being back in the EU will work in their favour.

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

I do hope that any residents in the UK don't waste their vote.

The Conservative Party are the only party pledged to delivering on the 2016 referendum result. With even more investment into the NHS, schools, and reduced crime; controlling borders, maintaining culture and identity, restoring our coastal fishing communities, and being able to have complete power to generate laws, control over monies, and cutting taxes. A positive, upbeat agenda that works.

With the Labour vote, you get stupendously high spending, increased taxes, a second referendum, a Scottish referendum, a nod to anti-Semitism, and business and wealth leaving the country; a return to some socialist Marxist utopia that will never exist in reality, and which will do long-term damage to the UK - both economically, democratically, and - in terms of foreign policy - a complete disaster with Diane Abbott leading the charge. A negative, damaging agenda that doesn't work.

That's why the Conservative Party are winning. Let's hope no votes are wasted to build Johnson's majority as high as possible.

Why is it when you talk about the Labour party you make baseless claims about how damaging they will be to the economy, but whenever people explain to you how damaging Brexit is for the economy you say you don't care?

circadian

robinph wrote: »

Didn't the SNP get bigger by having more than one actual policy and showing an ability to actually run things for the good of the population of Scotland? Whilst the Brexit party has only one policy and they can't even figure that out properly.

Aye the SNP have implemented a number of progressive policies that seem to be popular with the electorate. They're moving Scotland in a positive direction and getting easily elected despite not having overwhelming support for independence.

beggars_bush

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/12/the-largest-vote-swings-in-british-general-election-history-censored-out-by-the-bbc-and-mainstream-media/

The Largest Vote Swings in British General Election History Censored Out By the BBC and Mainstream Media

This election is seeing the largest vote swings in British political history. But that truth has been hidden by the largest media distortion in British political history.

Let me prove these claims. Certain constituencies have featured again and again in media coverage of the election, to reinforce the dominant media narrative, corresponding precisely to the government’s preferred election strategy, that working class Labour voters are deserting the party because of Brexit.

But if you look at the YouGov constituency model, conducted on a scale 100 times greater than most national opinion polls, and comparatively accurate in 2017, the bigger story is much more breathtaking.

*****************
the above website is an interesting read
basically how the BBC have been concentrating on constituencies where there is a swing away from Labour and not mentioning the place where there is a huge swing away from the Tories

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

An intention to back, held for however long (12 months acc.to your quote), is not "backing".

It becomes backing, once the ink dries on the shareholding agreement (or JV agreement, or ...).

Until then, in terms of due diligence, it's as unicorny as £350m painted in font size 120 on the side of a double decker.

and what would turn it from an intention to back, to actual backing?

The offer of a long term contract maybe?

ambro25 wrote: »

This Seaborne affair was a complete car crash of a public market allocation process, I can't believe anyone would waste even 5 minutes trying to defend the government's handling of it (still less so anyone paying tax in the UK, because in terms of "spaffing tax money up a wall" I've rarely seen better examples than this...and I've seen a few).

It was a good idea, managed badly. As I said, in a non Brexit world it would probably have gotten off the ground, the CEO of an established sea freight company seems to think so any way, but bad publicity tends to scare people away.

Joe_ Public

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was a member of the LP in Hackney when Diane Abbot was selected - I didn't like her as a person, I voted against her nomination, my experience of trying to work with her when I was a community worker in the borough was ... unpleasant... I genuinely thought she would be a terrible MP for her constituency.
I was wrong. Diane Abbot has been an excellent MP for the people of her constituency - which is why they keep electing her with a massive majority.
She has faced a tirade of appalling racist and sexist abuse in the decades she has been in the HoC and keeps on representing the people who elected her.
Yes, she has made some gaffs - but not as many as people like to claim particularly when you consider she has been an MP since 1987.

Pritti Patel - in her 9 years as an MP she has managed to display an impressive ability to constantly put her foot in her mouth (using food shortages as leverage against Ireland/Local Authorities are responsible for poverty etc etc), has displayed all the compassion of a scorpion (one assumes... hopes... none of her less well off constituents are even in need of help from their MP) and was forced to resign as International Development Secretary in 2017 following secret meetings in Israel.

Yes, i dont believe Abbott will ever be in the running for slickest politician of the year stakes but what she puts up with is unacceptable. She was ill when making some of those well publicised gaffes in 2017. But you dont often hear or moan or whine about it.

Recall the day JRM took his son on a stroll past the anti brexit protestors and made all the headlines. The same day, Abbott received much worse abuse, one thug virtually in her face spitting venom at her, and it received negligible coverage in comparison.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was a member of the LP in Hackney when Diane Abbot was selected - I didn't like her as a person, I voted against her nomination, my experience of trying to work with her when I was a community worker in the borough was ... unpleasant... I genuinely thought she would be a terrible MP for her constituency.
I was wrong. Diane Abbot has been an excellent MP for the people of her constituency - which is why they keep electing her with a massive majority.
She has faced a tirade of appalling racist and sexist abuse in the decades she has been in the HoC and keeps on representing the people who elected her.
Yes, she has made some gaffs - but not as many as people like to claim particularly when you consider she has been an MP since 1987.

I'm kind of glad they have kept Diane Abbot away from the media this time around. I have a lot of respect for her as an MP, but I don't think she is party leadership material.

She got destroyed two years ago and her interview on LBC was the car crash of the campaign, to the point where I actually thought she might be ill.