General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Letwin_Larry

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Boris Johnson in Shropshire revealing the Tory party policy programme once he has finished bashing everyone else.

First promise made that will be broken - no raising of taxes.

Wow, one lie and misrepresentation after another.

all Boris has to do is not to make any major gaff. just don't muck it up and he's practically home 'n hosed imo.

AllForIt

Strazdas wrote: »

Fintan O'Toole has said all along that Brexit is all about English nationalism.

Why would Wales vote for English nationalism?

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's assume Johnson - with a One Nation Conservative manifesto - attains a relatively large majority.

• Why would he permit a 2nd Scottish independence referendum?
• Why would he permit a Welsh independence referendum?
• Why would he permit a vote on Irish re-unification?

Can you provide evidence on why these 3 referenda will happen under a Johnson Administration?

Otherwise, yes, it's baseless speculation.

The ref will obviously be the last step, fought against, but inevitable.

Inevitable given what Johnson has already done. You seem to suggest that its unlikely to happen, but Johnson said it was impossible for NI only a few months ago.

He is actively working on a plan that will heighten the possibility of the breakup of the union.

Does that not bother you?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

The ref will obviously be the last step, fought against, but inevitable.

Inevitable given what Johnson has already done. You seem to suggest that its unlikely to happen, but Johnson said it was impossible for NI only a few months ago.

He is actively working on a plan that will heighten the possibility of the breakup of the union.

Does that not bother you?

You've provided no evidence that the UK breakup is inevitable.

Mr Johnson will not supply those 3 referenda.

When you find it, come back to me.

Mere speculation is not worth the paper it's written on. Speculation on what happens post-Johnson is just that, even worse speculation.

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've provided no evidence that the UK breakup is inevitable.

Mr Johnson will not supply those 3 referenda.

When you find it, come back to me.

Mere speculation is not worth the paper it's written on. Speculation on what happens post-Johnson is just that, even worse speculation.

Fine, if you can't see what he has already done with NI and cannot see the likely outcome with Scotland then I guess I can understand why you favour Johnson.

You ask for proof of reg, but Johnson has already agreed to that in NI. But instead of having to vote out, he simply decided for them and now they need to actually vote to rejoin the UK. Is that not proof enough of how little he regards the union? Not simply a ref, he has actively split the union.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, if you can't see what he has already done with NI and cannot see the likely outcome with Scotland then I guess I can understand why you favour Johnson.

You ask for proof of reg, but Johnson has already agreed to that in NI. But instead of having to vote out, he simply decided for them and now they need to actually vote to rejoin the UK. Is that not proof enough of how little he regards the union? Not simply a ref, he has actively split the union.

The Johnson Deal is not some guarantor of 3 referenda held under a Johnson Administration.

Again, it's not "proof".

Call into question Johnson's relationship with the truth - and I will agree with you - but, in terms of direct, concrete evidence on the inevitability of a UK-break-up, you have provided nothing more than speculation.

If I were to speculate on the UK booming post-Brexit, you would ask me - rightly - where my evidence is. If I said, "just trust me, it sort of seems that way", you wouldn't accept that as credible "evidence".

The same is true re: your UK break-up claim.

Joe_ Public

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Please go back and read that "study", which conclusively says there is no evidence for that conclusion and the study should not be taken to mean that.

That's from the report itself, not me. That statement is thrown out and repeated ad nauseum by those of a Left-wing disposition, without having actually read it. I mean, this is not acceptable.

Please consult that document for further information.

Thank you.

Which study are you referring to? There have been at least 2 studies done that have linked austerity with 10s of thousands of preventable deaths. I'm sure experts can and will quibble with it as experts tend to do with most studies that are compiled and it is, of course, hardly an exact science putting figures on these things. That prolonged austerity was indeed responsible for thousands of preventable or premature deaths isn't something that is reasonably arguable imo.

Irish Praetorian

Deleted User wrote: »

Part of it comes from the arrogance of Remain campaigners who either argue, or imply, that:

• Leave voters "didn't know what they were voting for"; code for "stupid and ignorant people". Even your own comment, "How are people falling for it?", implies that they are deluded or stupid in some form. It's incredibly patronising language.
• "Austerity" is a Left-leaning propaganda term; in reality, it means managed finances. Most people recognise you cannot egregiously spend your way out of debt and that an element of restraint is both reasonable and desirable.
• Few people want a terrorist-sympathiser and that cabinet in power, who have opposed the UK or, in Abbott's words, "a victory against the UK is a victory for us all". Let's not ignore the anti-Semitism scandal either.
• What Corbyn is proposing is plucked from the sky - free everything! That is itself unrealistic. It's a fantasy socialist utopia; it will never happen.
• People want to respect the 2016 referendum result and conclude this phase of Brexit; many on both Leave and Remain sides are coalescing under Prime Minister Johnson. The Revocationists and more delay, 2nd referendum etc. are falling in the polls.

Just some of the reasons why Johnson is dominating.

I really had not much to say on the other points and I was just going to expand on the point about 'stupid and ignorant people' but I see now there is a separate thread dedicated to that. So I thought I might just add here that it seems rather rich to be accusing the Remain side of patronising simplicities given some of the dreck which we've seen from the Leave side. I'm thinking specifically of things like 'Taking back control' - as though the average Grimsby fisherman is going to have any greater role in the creation of legislation after Brexit than he does now. Or the mantra of a 'Global Britain', as opposed to the existing parochial Britain which has no trade with the rest of the world and certainly no migrants. Or even the constant refrain of 'Great new trade deals' to be had, trade deals that are so great they must be preceded by putting in jeopardy of half the UK's existing trade, despite people not being sure of what exactly is going to get sold/bought or to whom.

Truthfully, I wouldn't actually disagree with the idea that Remain voters can certainly come off as a lot more arrogant and patronising than their Leave counterparts. Still, it seems like a far milder vice to sound patronising rather than to actually be so, and to be willing to treat the livelihoods of so many of the voters in casual disregard in order to build a new Singapore on Thames.

dublinman1990

Here is Corbyn's recent statement about the Tory manifesto today.

Boris Johnson has launched a manifesto for billionaires. They bought it and you’ll pay for it. After a decade of the Conservatives cutting our NHS, police and schools, all Boris Johnson is offering is more of the same: more cuts, more failure, and years more of Brexit uncertainty.

Boris Johnson can’t be trusted. Older people face a triple whammy as he has failed to protect free TV licences for over 75s, refused to grant justice to women unfairly affected by the increase in the state pension age, and not offered a plan or extra money to fix the social care crisis.

In contrast, Labour’s manifesto is full of popular policies that the political establishment has blocked for a generation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/24/general-election-2019-conservatives-manifesto-tax-nhs-spending-live-news

Johnson launched a much more restrictive manifesto which has "Get Brexit Done" has the main theme included in it. It does not offer much more substantial things of note to it's voters when it's compared to what other parties are offering in their manifestos. Jo Swinson on the other hand was in some way already admitting defeat to Johnson today, to Andrew Marr on the BBC, by saying that Johnson will win a majority in the GE come polling day. She suggested this information when it was taken from opinion polls. I have no reason why she is making that statement now when it's not even polling day for some weeks yet.

However this is what she said on Andrew Marr today.

Swinson’s party could end up with a lot of sway in a future hung parliament, says Marr. He asks what their priority would be. “Of course, the Liberal Democrats want to stop Brexit and we will be campaigning to stop Brexit,” she says.

“As things stand, Boris Johnson is on course to get a majority,” she says. “If you look at the polls right now, that is what they say.” The Liberal Democrats are the party in the best position to take many seats from the Conservatives.

Swinson says the Lib Dems would vote in favour of having a second EU referendum with Boris Johnson’s deal as one option and remaining as the other option.

She could become very foolish here to suggest that the Tories could win the election at this point because if she got some information from opinion polls; this was probably not the right time at all to actually mention it. Also making a statement like this does gives her more of a substantial risk of losing her seat in the lead-up to the election on polling day. Opinions from voters can & will change overtime when the campaign is ongoing at this point. Taking snippets of information from opinion polls are not meant to be taken as gospel at this time. They only provide a limited snapshot of what a certain percentage of voters want for this election. They are really not good indicators compared to the actual poll itself which is released on polling day.

Although she has said to Marr that the Lib Dems will be in favour of another Brexit referendum with the WA as one option & Remain as the other one. That is quite a change in her party's policy on Brexit from having a Revoke Article 50 stance without a public vote to now having one with a referendum for the public in mind.

One thing that could be noteworthy to observe from the opinion polls at this point is that Lib Dem voters are more likely to switch their votes to Labour which might see them give a hit to the gains of Tory seats up until the GE results are made public. If Labour do win the election instead of the Tories. What could Swinson say on polling day if she got her statements completely wrong if Labour win a majority instead as opposed to the Tories winning one?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

The Johnson Deal is not some guarantor of 3 referenda held under a Johnson Administration.

Again, it's not "proof".

Call into question Johnson's relationship with the truth - and I will agree with you - but, in terms of direct, concrete evidence on the inevitability of a UK-break-up, you have provided nothing more than speculation.

If I were to speculate on the UK booming post-Brexit, you would ask me - rightly - where my evidence is. If I said, "just trust me, it sort of seems that way", you wouldn't accept that as credible "evidence".

The same is true re: your UK break-up claim.

Even the DUP see it as breaking up the union by creating a border in the Irish sea and forcing NI businesses to prepare customs paperwork when shipping goods within their own union.

That's pretty strong evidence of it being broken up if you ask me.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This was already debunked several weeks ago.



There is no conclusion at all.

It's totally taken out of all context, and shamelessly put out as "full fact" by pro-Left supporters.

Well there was a conclusion, that spending constraints since 2010, especially social care, may have produced a substantial mortality gap in England.

It's an inconclusive conclusion.

It also showed that constraints in health case and social care spending in England were associated with nearly 45,000 higher than expected numbers of deaths between 2012 and 2014.

Anyway, Eskimohunt, you're link is an attempt to debunk the findings of the BMJ Effects of health and social care spending constraints on mortality in England: a time trend analysis report published in 2017.

The 130,000 figure however came from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) Ending the Blame Game report published in 2019, it was a bit more conclusive:-

Ending the Blame Game

A similar trend is also observed for deaths attributable to a preventable risk factor. Had the trend from 1990 and 2012 continued, we estimate that there could have been 130,000 deaths averted between 2012 and 2017.

The IPPR doesn’t directly attribute the 130,000 deaths that could have been averted to austerity, but it does say that prevention services and public health has been severely impacted by a decade of austerity. It also identifies spending reductions in some more specific areas, for example early years, as negatively affecting public health.

Prevention services and public health has been severely impacted by a decade of austerity

Joe_ Public

GM228 wrote: »

Well there was a conclusion, that spending constraints since 2010, especially PES, may have produced a substantial mortality gap in England.

It's an inconclusive conclusion.

It also showed that constraints in PEH and PES spending in England were associated with nearly 45 000 higher than expected numbers of deaths between 2012 and 2014.

Also worth noting that since 2011 the UK has suffered one of the largest declines in the growth of life expectancy in a study of the worlds leading economies.

Main points
Until 2011, life expectancy in the UK had been increasing for a number of decades; however, in the second decade of the 21st century, the UK along with several other countries has seen a notable slowdown in these improvements in both male and female mortality.
Between 2011 and 2016, the UK experienced one of the largest slowdowns in improvements in life expectancy at birth and at age 65 years for both males and females out of the countries analysed.
The slowdown in improvements in mortality was observed most widely across the countries analysed for 65-to-79-year-olds, while females have been more affected overall by the slowdown than males.
Japan has come through a period with low life expectancy gains and has recently experienced an accelera

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/changingtrendsinmortalityaninternationalcomparison/2000to2016

Of course, it could all just be an incredible co-incidence that this, in fact, co-incided with the onset of auster....sorry, the managing of finances. Nothing to see here.

Stop moaning ffs

Managing of finances.

How is Tories ‘ managing of finances’ compatable with that same parties promise to pull hundreds of billions out of the sky to remedy the ‘managing of finances’ policy they’ve had for the past 9 years?


I have a feeling there won’t be answer given.

sid waddell

Strazdas wrote: »

Fintan O'Toole has said all along that Brexit is all about English nationalism.

You could argue that a vote for the Tories in this election is a vote to break up the UK, perhaps that's what the English voters secretly want (even if the party leadership claim to be totally opposed to this).

The concept of English nationalism is very strange to me, as England itself is highly divided along both class and geographical lines.

I can't think of another European country bar Spain which is so tied up with regional identity.

I can't imagine English nationalism has much traction among ethnic minorities, or in urban areas.

England has a massive north-south divide, the urban-rural divide is becoming ever more apparent too.

Many people in cities like Liverpool and to a lesser extent Manchester almost don't consider themselves English or British at all - Liverpool supporters booed God Save The Queen at Wembley recently.

There is huge identity of place in Yorkshire and the North East around Newcastle and surrounds.

English nationalism seems a very imported, alien concept to me, sort of American style or, dare I say it, Russian style. It seems a very Tory/Brexity thing.

Russia has continually promoted separatism within countries - Scotland, Catalonia, and in the US, Cal-Exit and Texit etc.

Is the next follow on from English nationalism a move to split England itself apart?

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's assume Johnson - with a One Nation Conservative manifesto - attains a relatively large majority.

• Why would he permit a 2nd Scottish independence referendum?
• W

because pro-independence parties have a mandate in the Scottish Parliament

bcause the SNP won the General Election in Scotland in 2015, 2017 and will do so again in 2019

What right does Johnson have to not allow a 2nd Scottish independence referendum?

Strazdas

sid waddell wrote: »

The concept of English nationalism is very strange to me, as England itself is highly divided along both class and geographical lines.

I can't think of another European country bar Spain which is so tied up with regional identity.

I can't imagine English nationalism has much traction among ethnic minorities, or in urban areas.

England has a massive north-south divide, the urban-rural divide is becoming ever more apparent too.

Many people in cities like Liverpool and to a lesser extent Manchester almost don't consider themselves English or British at all - Liverpool supporters booed God Save The Queen at Wembley recently.

There is huge identity of place in Yorkshire and the North East around Newcastle and surrounds.

English nationalism seems a very imported, alien concept to me, sort of American style or, dare I say it, Russian style. It seems a very Tory/Brexity thing.

Russia has continually promoted separatism within countries - Scotland, Catalonia, and in the US, Cal-Exit and Texit etc.

Is the next follow on from English nationalism a move to split England itself apart?

Well it should be added that 'English nationalism' appears to be purely a right wing thing and is not shared by the centrists and left wing people - telling us that even England is divided down the middle.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

The Johnson Deal is not some guarantor of 3 referenda held under a Johnson Administration.

Again, it's not "proof".

Call into question Johnson's relationship with the truth - and I will agree with you - but, in terms of direct, concrete evidence on the inevitability of a UK-break-up, you have provided nothing more than speculation.

If I were to speculate on the UK booming post-Brexit, you would ask me - rightly - where my evidence is. If I said, "just trust me, it sort of seems that way", you wouldn't accept that as credible "evidence".

The same is true re: your UK break-up claim.

Except that Johnson has already agreed to sectioning off one part of the union (Ni). I never mentioned Ref,s you did, I was suggesting that Johnsons actions, exhibit 1 being is treatment of NI, is that he is more than happy to sacrifice the union for his version of Brexit.

As such, why would you have any faith that he won't do something else? He has already shown himself to content to see the union split apart (one can argue over the amount of the separation but there is no doubt that the union between NI and GB will be fundamentally altered due to Brexit).

I'm not asking you so trust me, I don't know what will happen. I am merely looking at the evidence to hand and extrapolating from that. You seem to want to ignore the evidence and claim that their is simply no way to know!

Danzy

The change evident know is that the Conservatives are more hostile to the Union than Labour are.

Johnson's deal effectively makes the ini9n unworkable long term and the DUP now it.

Conservatives know it and they are delighted rather than outraged.

sid waddell

Strazdas wrote: »

Well it should be added that 'English nationalism' appears to be purely a right wing thing and is not shared by the centrists and left wing people - telling us that even England is divided down the middle.

It's sort of strange that the Union Jack has traditionally been like a red rag to a bull in Ireland, whereas the English flag hasn't really been viewed with the same hostility.

Yet my impression is that in England, British identity has sort of morphed into a more inclusive, almost liberal thing, whereas English identity and English nationalism seems quite scary.

Yet while British identity is becoming less threatening and more inclusive, in England it seems to me that those of a British identity are perhaps more amenable to Scottish, Welsh and Irish self-determination and possible Scottish and Welsh independence and Irish unity. ie. those most amenable to splitting Britain apart.

For all the claims that those of an English identity don't care about the Union, I don't buy it - I think when push comes to shove, those of an English identity will still prove the most Unionist of all, because as a right-wing idea, English nationalism is inherently tied up with colonialism - except it's colonialism over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It's just another version of having your cake and eating it.

Danzy

sid waddell wrote: »

It's sort of strange that the Union Jack has traditionally been like a red rag to a bull in Ireland, whereas the English flag hasn't really been viewed with the same hostility.

Yet my impression is that in England, British identity has sort of morphed into a more inclusive, almost liberal thing, whereas English identity and English nationalism seems quite scary.

Yet while British identity is becoming less threatening and more inclusive, in England it seems to me that those of a British identity are perhaps more amenable to Scottish, Welsh and Irish self-determination and possible Scottish and Welsh independence and Irish unity. ie. those most amenable to splitting Britain apart.

For all the claims that those of an English identity don't care about the Union, I don't buy it - I think when push comes to shove, those of an English identity will still prove the most Unionist of all, because as a right-wing idea, English nationalism is inherently tied up with colonialism - except it's colonialism over Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It's just another version of having your cake and eating it.

I
British identity was built for imperial purposes. Those most committed to being British, tend to be the most Unionist.

English nationalism is largely a working class politics but for the last 60 years the idea of being British has been fading bit by bit.

British identity was dying from, if you wanted to pick a symbolic moment, the leaving of India.

In another few decades it'll slip away.

The British identity was a way the English imperial establishment could co opt others to go along, get along.

Capt'n Midnight

Total borrowing this financial year, which runs from April, is £46.3bn, over 10% higher than the same time in 2018.


Graph of how UK debt is three and and a halt times what it was 10 years ago.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0C91/production/_109771230_optimised-net.debt-nc.png-2019-nov-21-nc.png

The Conservatives have become the party of Borrow and Send.
Corporation tax been reduced since 2010.

Labour have at said there will be some tax increases.

Not quite sure how the Tories plan to pay to cost of buying an election.
Corporation tax revenues fell 6.2% in October, the biggest fall for that month in four years.

The third biggest party are very clear about getting rid of Trident which will save £100 billion or so.

sid waddell

Danzy wrote: »

I
British identity was built for imperial purposes. Those most committed to being British, tend to be the most Unionist.

English nationalism is largely a working class politics but for the last 60 years the idea of being British has been fading bit by bit.

British identity was dying from, if you wanted to pick a symbolic moment, the leaving of India.

In another few decades it'll slip away.

The British identity was a way the English imperial establishment could co opt others to go along, get along.

British identity may have been an imperialistic construct but I don't agree that it has remained that, I think it has evolved.

I think a British identity generally feels less threatening to immigrants to England than an exclusively English one.

I would strongly suspect that history of the British Empire is held in more positive regard among those English people with an exclusively or primarily English identity than among those of an exclusively or primarily British identity.

I more than strongly suspect that the history of the British Empire is held in more positive regard among Brexiteers than it is among Remainers - it seems pretty self-evident to me that that is the case.

To me, as an outsider looking in, Britishness feels more diverse and inclusive, Englishness feels more white and more threatening.

Strazdas

sid waddell wrote: »

I don't agree.

I think a British identity generally feels less threatening to immigrants to England than an exclusively English one.

I would strongly suspect that history of the British Empire is held in more positive regard among those English people with an exclusively or primarily English identity than among those of an exclusively or primarily British identity.

I more than strongly suspect that the history of the British Empire is held in more positive regard among Brexiteers than it is among Remainers - it seems pretty self-evident to me that that is the case.

We should note that Brexit is mostly an English, right wing / Tory thing. The overwhelming number of Brexit supporters fall into these categories.....we've seen it in numerous opinion polls.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

because pro-independence parties have a mandate in the Scottish Parliament

bcause the SNP won the General Election in Scotland in 2015, 2017 and will do so again in 2019?

What right does Johnson have to not allow a 2nd Scottish independence referendum?

Let's say IndyRef2 takes place toward the end of 2020 and the nationalists lose again, yet win the next General Election too - should we then have a third referendum in 2024?

By your logic, this is not only concievable but welcome.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

We should note that Brexit is mostly an English, right wing / Tory thing. The overwhelming number of Brexit supporters fall into these categories.....we've seen it in numerous opinion polls.

It's not a question of the "Scots voted to Leave", or "Wales voted to Leave"...

It's that the UK voted to Leave.

Ethnic identity has nothing to do with the value of one vote.

Racialising the Brexit vote is not something you should be doing.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's say IndyRef2 takes place toward the end of 2020 and the nationalists lose again, yet win the next General Election too - should we then have a third referendum in 2024?

By your logic, this is not only concievable but welcome.

Is there any chance at all you will respond to the discussion we started in relation to 'what people voted for in the 2016 brexit referendum'.. I specifically outlined the points which.. you yourself requested.. and I eagerly await your response

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a question of the "Scots voted to Leave", or "Wales voted to Leave"...

It's that the UK voted to Leave.

Ethnic identity has nothing to do with the value of one vote.

You don't believe in nations being subject to the will of an undemocratic supranational union, so unless you've changed your stance within the last few days, you can't use that as the basis for your argument.

Danzy

Opinium poll for the Observer, Tories 19 points ahead.

More importantly, 6 points ahead in the North of England and 23 points ahead in the Midlands.

The Tories were always ten ahead in the Midlands so that is different but in the North of England, Labour were alway 20-25% ahead, they have 80 seats there.

Circa 40% of their party MPs.

God be good to the late Martin McGuinness, it reminds me of his line to Sean Gallagher. I think you are in serious trouble here.

Labour are heading to a collapse if this poll is anyway correct.

Professor Moriarty

Danzy wrote: »

Opinium poll for the Observer, Tories 19 points ahead.

More importantly, 6 points ahead in the North of England and 23 points ahead in the Midlands.

The Tories were always ten ahead in the Midlands so that is different but in the North of England, Labour were alway 20-25% ahead, they have 80 seats there.

Circa 40% of their party MPs.

God be good to the late Martin McGuinness, it reminds me of his line to Sean Gallagher. I think you are in serious trouble here.

Labour are heading to a collapse if this poll is anyway correct.

Only themselves to blame.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a question of the "Scots voted to Leave", or "Wales voted to Leave"...

It's that the UK voted to Leave.

Ethnic identity has nothing to do with the value of one vote.

Racialising the Brexit vote is not something you should be doing.

You can't disagree with me that the overwhelming number of Brexit supporters are Tory voters : opinion polls show that 80% or something of Conservative voters are pro-Brexit (and most of these are to be found in England).