General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Capt'n Midnight

So far the only plausible way I've seen to retain more nurses is to increase the retirement age. Again.


50,000 nurses will cost a few billion a year in wage costs alone.

Paying the existing 320,000 nurses and midwives enough to make them stay will also cost billions. There's 40,000 vacancies so there'd still be a shortfall.

Without accurate funding costs and details of where that money will come from it's just hand waving.

Rjd2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He came up with Get Brexit Done and has been directing Johnson to date. Dunno who the Aussie bloke is?

Its Isaac Levido who is running the campaign from all accounts.

Cummings floating about in the background,,think e was meant to be in hospital for an operation around now.

FrancieBrady

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its Isaac Levido who is running the campaign from all accounts.

Cummings floating about in the background,,think e was meant to be in hospital for an operation around now.

Nothing trivial I hope?

Tories are romping home unless their is a political earthquake. I'm kinda glad as one way or another something will happen in this interminable process.

Joe_ Public

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm not sure I get the Trump comparison. May didn't bother to debate in 2017 either. She wasn't compared with Trump.

Plus, they are so different personalities.

Political manoeuvring didn't start with Trump.

True, trump and johnson have certainly more differences than similarities in terms of character. But tweeting rubbish at the very moment you should really be engaging in an important public debate seems quite a trumpian thing. Least to me anyway. So much of the johnson campaign strategy seems straight out of the trump 2016 playbook that i wouldnt be surprised to hear of Steve bannon having some behind the scenes role in it.

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing trivial I hope?

Tories are romping home unless their is a political earthquake. I'm kinda glad as one way or another something will happen in this interminable process.

I actually think the polls will worry the conservatives. There's always the danger of complacency when there's a clear lead in the polls and on the other side a renewed effort to close the gap. That poll came out a bit too early for there to be any real comfort in it. A week later and I'd agree on them romping home alright.

hotmail.com

Joe_ Public wrote: »

True, trump and johnson have certainly more differences than similarities in terms of character. But tweeting rubbish at the very moment you should really be engaging in an important public debate seems quite a trumpian thing. Least to me anyway. So much of the johnson campaign strategy seems straight out of the trump 2016 playbook that i wouldnt be surprised to hear of Steve bannon having some behind the scenes role in it.

The Tory message of this campaign has been to get Brexit done and to demonise Labour's confused policy on Brexit. Campaigning has been quite tame so far.

This has nothing to do with a Trump playbook.

This isn't a presidential election.

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

True, trump and johnson have certainly more differences than similarities in terms of character. But tweeting rubbish at the very moment you should really be engaging in an important public debate seems quite a trumpian thing. Least to me anyway. So much of the johnson campaign strategy seems straight out of the trump 2016 playbook that i wouldnt be surprised to hear of Steve bannon having some behind the scenes role in it.

The Tory campaign has been extremely Trump-esque.

Pure gaslighting all the way.

Consistent gaslighting of this nature is an attempt to create an alternate reality where objective truth has no currency.

Trump adopted Russian campaign tactics. History is moving from east to west, where previously it moved west to east.

Johnson and the Tory media are doing the exact same thing. And you can't divorce the Tory media from the party campaign, they are effectively the same thing.

To be fair, the Tory media have themselves been at this sort of thing for decades. But the party itself has now run with full blown Sun tactics.

Nobody should be in any doubt about what's going on and it's disastrous for democracy. I mean we've literally had Johnson threeaten to shut down Channel 4 tonight. That is alarming.

And no, the degree to which the Tory campaign is willing to gaslight this time isn't the same as ever before, even 2017. It'll only get worse in future years, this isn't going away.

Democracy is under threat all across Europe and the world and the Tory campaign this time is in that vein.

Joe_ Public

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Tory message of this campaign has been to get Brexit done and to demonise Labour's confused policy on Brexit. Campaigning has been quite tame so far.

This has nothing to do with a Trump playbook.

This isn't a presidential election.

Cheap, tacky slogans, People v parliament, doctored videos, relentless obfuscation and deflection to opposition, slim almost barren manifesto, few simple phrases battered out remorselessly over and over, concentration on working class vote in areas the equivalent of the us rust belt.....probably more clear echoes i could think of.

Maybe cummings et al would have come up with all that regardless, seems obvious. But still. Cant see what difference what kind of election it is.

hotmail.com

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Cheap, tacky slogans, People v parliament, doctored videos, relentless obfuscation and deflection to opposition, slim almost barren manifesto, few simple phrases battered out remorselessly over and over, concentration on working class vote in areas the equivalent of the us rust belt.....probably more clear echoes i could think of.

Maybe cummings et al would have come up with all that regardless, seems obvious. But still. Cant see what difference what kind of election it is.

This is the way the Tories have always campaigned.

Thatcher attracted a large working class vote because of her right to buy policy.

What you're describing is basically how every party campaigns.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

The Tory campaign has been extremely Trump-esque.

Pure gaslighting all the way.

Consistent gaslighting of this nature is an attempt to create an alternate reality where objective truth has no currency.

Trump adopted Russian campaign tactics. History is moving from east to west, where previously it moved west to east.

Johnson and the Tory media are doing the exact same thing. And you can't divorce the Tory media from the party campaign, they are effectively the same thing.

To be fair, the Tory media have themselves been at this sort of thing for decades. But the party itself has now run with full blown Sun tactics.

Nobody should be in any doubt about what's going on and it's disastrous for democracy. I mean we've literally had Johnson threeaten to shut down Channel 4 tonight. That is alarming.

And no, the degree to which the Tory campaign is willing to gaslight this time isn't the same as ever before, even 2017. It'll only get worse in future years, this isn't going away.

Democracy is under threat all across Europe and the world and the Tory campaign this time is in that vein.

What a load of nonsense.

The 2016 vote was a democratic vote. The parliament is now instructed to carry out the wishes of the people. I don't agree with it but there you go.

So spare us the lectures on democracy.

I recall Enda Kenny didn't bother to show up to a 2011 debate on TV3 because Vincent Browne was the host. Leaders not turning up for media appearances isn't alarming.

Joe_ Public

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is the way the Tories have always campaigned.

Thatcher attracted a large working class vote because of her right to buy policy.

What you're describing is basically how every party campaigns.

Sure, i didnt exactly say they were reinventing the wheel. You can validly say there are echoes with thatcher and any number of other campaigns but in terms of 21st century electoral politics and digital strategies the trump campaign took that to a new level and the vibe of this campaign feels very similar to me. Its not the lying and the outright spinning of fact, but the bare faced cheek with which it is being done that marks it out for me. Thats the trumpian thing, coming out with lies and rubbish and not caring what anybody thinks. Thats not all parties, just johnson and the tories.

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

The 2016 vote was a democratic vote. The parliament is now instructed to carry out the wishes of the people. I don't agree with it but there you go.

So spare us the lectures on democracy.

I recall Enda Kenny didn't bother to show up to a 2011 debate on TV3 because Vincent Browne was the host. Leaders not turning up for media appearances isn't alarming.

Vote Leave and Leave.EU both broke the law.

The referendum and the "rules" around it and the online interference were wild west stuff.

Ireland is far from perfect, but we at least know how to run referendums. There are broadcasting fairness rules in place and official information and, crucially, defined choices.

The Brits hadn't a clue how to run the referendum and when you haven't a clue to carry out a referendum, you shouldn't be surprised when it destroys the political landscape in a way that is highly damaging to the country.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the few to foresee the dangers of this sort of referendum, which was why she was against them.

Party leaders not turning up for debates or interviews is a derogation of duty. The national broadcaster conning the opposition leader that the Prime Minister had agreed to a similar interview when he hadn't is utterly dishonest, seriously damages the reputation of the national broadcaster, and affects the outcome of the election itself.

The Prime Minister threatening to revoke the licence of Channel 4, one of the few broadcasters who take their public service obligations seriously, is an attack on objective journalism, and therefore the free press.

Democracy is a fragile eco-system, it isn't just counting votes.

Joe_ Public

The empty threat of revoking channel 4 license should be seen for what it is by now - classic deflection tactic. They'd rather this be covered tonight and tomorrow than johnsons cowardly no show. Goves childish stunt with pere johnson in exactly same vein too.

Simple stuff but so effective. Talk about cummings earlier but some of his stuff is clever - like the supposed non signing of the extension letter in october which meant there was more focus on had he broken the law, solicitors talking about whether he'd be charged - which cummings would dearly have loved if johnson maybe not so much - instead of the real story which was johnsons abject humiliation and utter failure to deliver on promise of delivering brexit.

Never underestimate cummings, a clever dangerous individual i think.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

Vote Leave and Leave.EU both broke the law.

The referendum and the "rules" around it and the online interference were wild west stuff.

Ireland is far from perfect, but we at least know how to run referendums. There are broadcasting fairness rules in place and official information and, crucially, defined choices.

The Brits hadn't a clue how to run the referendum and when you haven't a clue to carry out a referendum, you shouldn't be surprised when it destroys the political landscape in a way that is highly damaging to the country.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the few to foresee the dangers of this sort of referendum, which was why she was against them.

So you don't accept the democratic vote?

I don't understand.. you're in favour of democracy but then you're against referendums.

As stated before, the referendum was no accident. The British never warmed to the EU. You can blame all the dodgy facebook advertising you like.

But it's time to move on and accept democracy.

Strazdas

sid waddell wrote: »

Vote Leave and Leave.EU both broke the law.

The referendum and the "rules" around it and the online interference were wild west stuff.

Ireland is far from perfect, but we at least know how to run referendums. There are broadcasting fairness rules in place and official information and, crucially, defined choices.

The Brits hadn't a clue how to run the referendum and when you haven't a clue to carry out a referendum, you shouldn't be surprised when it destroys the political landscape in a way that is highly damaging to the country.

Margaret Thatcher was one of the few to foresee the dangers of this sort of referendum, which was why she was against them.

Party leaders not turning up for debates or interviews is a derogation of duty. The national broadcaster conning the opposition leader that the Prime Minister had agreed to a similar interview when he hadn't is utterly dishonest, seriously damages the reputation of the national broadcaster, and affects the outcome of the election itself.

The Prime Minister threatening to revoke the licence of Channel 4, one of the few broadcasters who take their public service obligations seriously, is an attack on objective journalism, and therefore the free press.

Democracy is a fragile eco-system, it isn't just counting votes.

And still haven't : they're talking about how it would be "undemocratic" to hold a confirmatory referendum four years later :rolleyes:

Extreme political ignorance across the board........they don't understand referendums, how they work, what their purpose is or how they fit into a parliamentary democracy

Strazdas

hotmail.com wrote: »

So you don't accept the democratic vote?

I don't understand.. you're in favour of democracy but then you're against referendums.

As stated before, the referendum was no accident. The British never warmed to the EU. You can blame all the dodgy facebook advertising you like.

But it's time to move on and accept democracy.

Parliament blocking the result being implemented was also democratic, in fact 100 times more democratic than the referendum itself

Referendums are meant to be a mere tool of the political system in the UK, a very minor one (the British public evidently don't even understand how their own political system works or what the role of their Parliament is)

Letwin_Larry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It just gets more and more pathetic. Even Prince Andrew did an interview for God's sake.

and that went really well ...

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The empty threat of revoking channel 4 license should be seen for what it is by now - classic deflection tactic. They'd rather this be covered tonight and tomorrow than johnsons cowardly no show. Goves childish stunt with pere johnson in exactly same vein too.

Simple stuff but so effective. Talk about cummings earlier but some of his stuff is clever - like the supposed non signing of the extension letter in october which meant there was more focus on had he broken the law, solicitors talking about whether he'd be charged - which cummings would dearly have loved if johnson maybe not so much - instead of the real story which was johnsons abject humiliation and utter failure to deliver on promise of delivering brexit.

Never underestimate cummings, a clever dangerous individual i think.

It is deflection but it's also highly dangerous in and of itself.

It's an attempt to instil fear into a broadcaster to get them to modify their coverage to be more favourable to the Tories.

These sort of threats have undoubtedly worked in the US and they've clearly already worked with the BBC.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

and that went really well ...

Interesting you're citing Prince Andrew crashing and burning as a reason Boris Johnson shouldn't do an interview, a Tory supporter equating the two just about sums him up.

prawnsambo

It's instructive to see people on here defending Johnson for not turning up to interviews and avoiding the press. And in the process vilifying the press rather than the politician who won't submit himself to public scrutiny. They seem to miss the point that the press in these situations, stands for the people. If they can't ask hard questions of the politicians, that's a subversion of democracy.

This is the same kind of thing that Trump has mainstreamed with his "enemies of the people" propaganda. It's Orwellian and no democratic minded person should ever cheer the muzzling of the press. Regardless of what you think their views might be. Because every sword has two edges.

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's instructive to see people on here defending Johnson for not turning up to interviews and avoiding the press. And in the process vilifying the press rather than the politician who won't submit himself to public scrutiny. They seem to miss the point that the press in these situations, stands for the people. If they can't ask hard questions of the politicians, that's a subversion of democracy.

This is the same kind of thing that Trump has mainstreamed with his "enemies of the people" propaganda. It's Orwellian and no democratic minded person should ever cheer the muzzling of the press. Regardless of what you think their views might be. Because every sword has two edges.

It's a tough one. Johnson has every right not to turn up for a debate if he doesn't want to. Ultimately, his main job is to get a majority government. There's no obligation on him to do these TV debates and he has already done one. I criticize him for it but ultimately understand why.

Equally, it's the presses job to criticize him for avoiding a debate.

If he avoids the press when he is in office, that's a different story. Avoiding the press in the run up to the election is the smart move (based on the YouGov poll).

He can be critized and right at the same time. I don't quite see them as mutually exclusive events. Calling it Orwellian or a subversion of democracy is a bit much in my opinion. Ultimately, if people don't want to vote for him, they don't have too.

I say all this as someone who hates Boris and a Labour supporter.

A Dub in Glasgo

bren2001 wrote: »

It's a tough one. Johnson has every right not to turn up for a debate if he doesn't want to. Ultimately, his main job is to get a majority government. There's no obligation on him to do these TV debates and he has already done one. I criticize him for it but ultimately understand why.

Equally, it's the presses job to criticize him for avoiding a debate.

If he avoids the press when he is in office, that's a different story. Avoiding the press in the run up to the election is the smart move (based on the YouGov poll).

He can be critized and right at the same time. I don't quite see them as mutually exclusive events. Calling it Orwellian or a subversion of democracy is a bit much in my opinion. Ultimately, if people don't want to vote for him, they don't have too.

I say all this as someone who hates Boris and a Labour supporter.

It was simple bait and switch from Johnson. Commit to doing it but appear last and then when his main competitor has been on, pull out of the debate

He should be condemned by everyone for it and he is not right

prawnsambo

bren2001 wrote: »

It's a tough one. Johnson has every right not to turn up for a debate if he doesn't want to. Ultimately, his main job is to get a majority government. There's no obligation on him to do these TV debates and he has already done one. I criticize him for it but ultimately understand why.

Equally, it's the presses job to criticize him for avoiding a debate.

If he avoids the press when he is in office, that's a different story. Avoiding the press in the run up to the election is the smart move (based on the YouGov poll).

He can be critized and right at the same time. I don't quite see them as mutually exclusive events. Calling it Orwellian or a subversion of democracy is a bit much in my opinion. Ultimately, if people don't want to vote for him, they don't have too.

I say all this as someone who hates Boris and a Labour supporter.

If it was just refusing to turn up, it might get a pass. But it's threatening C4's licence while refusing to turn up that crosses the line. It doesn't matter if they intend to or not, it's the implication behind that threat that makes it worrying.

Edit: And it's a trend with the Conservatives which doesn't look good:

Don't like what Parliament is doing: prorogue Parliament
Don't like how the Supreme Court is ruling: reduce its powers
Don't like how the House of Lords is voting: limit its influence
Don't like Channel 4: we'll review its license

bren2001

prawnsambo wrote: »

If it was just refusing to turn up, it might get a pass. But it's threatening C4's licence while refusing to turn up that crosses the line. It doesn't matter if they intend to or not, it's the implication behind that threat that makes it worrying.

The threatening of C4's license is worrying all right. I agree with you there.

robinph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It was simple bait and switch from Johnson. Commit to doing it but appear last and then when his main competitor has been on, pull out of the debate

He should be condemned by everyone for it and he is not right

Do the BBC have the balls to ensure they provide a balance of programming in the lead up to the election now though? If they don't run some kind of piece dismantling the Tory manifesto and Johnson as much as they did for each of the other parties and leaders then they should be found in breach of their license by OfCom or whoever does such things.

A Dub in Glasgo

What this demonstrates is that media outlets should insist that the Tories go first as they have demonstrated quite clearly that they cannot be trusted. Either that or scrap the idea of individual 'grilling' interviews all together

It is very clear why Johnson is running away

prawnsambo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What this demonstrates is that media outlets should insist that the Tories go first as they have demonstrated quite clearly that they cannot be trusted. Either that or scrap the idea of individual 'grilling' interviews all together

It is very clear why Johnson is running away

They should actually interview the leaders who turned up again and this time, give them a far softer run. Complete puff pieces a la LauraK.

Consternation in the Conservatives. What to do.

bren2001

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What this demonstrates is that media outlets should insist that the Tories go first as they have demonstrated quite clearly that they cannot be trusted. Either that or scrap the idea of individual 'grilling' interviews all together

It is very clear why Johnson is running away

It's clear that the Tories won't be doing any more debates or interviews. Best-case scenario, there is no change in voting intentions. They know Johnson is a liability. They have no reason to engage with the media in that context anymore.

Letwin_Larry

sid waddell wrote: »

Interesting you're citing Prince Andrew crashing and burning as a reason Boris Johnson shouldn't do an interview, a Tory supporter equating the two just about sums him up.

in a sense yes.
but you have to emerge from your tribal bunker and realise that Johnson has now more to lose than Corbyn.

The latter went on the Andrew Neil interview and imo blew it. it was a car crash, in much the same way Prince Andrew's interview with Ms. Maitlis was.
BOTH would have been better off staying at home, and watching Corrie.

Johnson would be very ill-advised to go on the Ch4 pointless show last evening, and also the Andrew Neil interview/grilling.

if he steers clear of these "gameshows" he WILL be PM on the 13th Dec 2019.

Note! please remember i couldn't give a fiddlers who wins this election. i follow it purely for amusement purposes.

A Dub in Glasgo

and how does the leaders of political parties looking for votes assist democracy if they stay at home and not put themselves forward for scrutiny because it is 'too hard'?