General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Speaking of trees, Labour policy is - as usual - exposed for what it is = pure fantasy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1199939534282248194

Perhaps you should read some of the counter Tweets, it's far from fantasy.

And perhaps the BBC missed one of their previous topics on the issue which showed Ethiopia planted 350M trees in ONE day.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/more-or-less-behind-the-stats/id267300884?i=1000447831811

Whilst they may want 6 times more trees in the UK, they have 1700 times more days to do it.

200 trees per minute may make it sound like fantasy, but it's a very selective break down, in reality it really is only a little over 1 tree per person per year, not that much of a fantasy is it?

Bannasidhe

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The tree planting thing isn't impossible if you plant the right trees - ones with acorns

Here is the full Nick Ferrari/Boris Johnson interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmpzuwgnDA

Joe_ Public wrote: »

This one guy, just one guy almost all on his ownio, estimates he has planted 2 million trees over the past decade. Thats just one guy. On one day alone he planted 2,000 trees.

Reforesting the UK: 'Trees are the ultimate long-term project'

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/16/reforesting-the-uk-trees-are-the-ultimate-long-term-project?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

With respect, both of you are missing the point of Eskimo's interest in trees - there are required to hide the fact that primary source documents are available which prove that dismantling the NHS and the Welfare State and selling off the profitable parts while allowing the unprofitable to whither due to lack of funding was a dream of Margaret 'The NHS is safe with us' Thatcher and these docs demonstrate the Tories have 'form' in this area ... and lie about it... even to their own colleagues...

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect, both of you are missing the point of Eskimo's interest in trees - there are required to hide the fact that primary source documents are available which prove that dismantling the NHS and the Welfare State and selling off the profitable parts while allowing the unprofitable to whither due to lack of funding was a dream of Margaret 'The NHS is safe with us' Thatcher and these docs demonstrate the Tories have 'form' in this area ... and lie about it... even to their own colleagues...

...which is why Labour privatised the NHS in their decade in power after Margaret Thatcher.

Labour ended up more Tory than the Tories.

It's Labour who has "form in this area". :rolleyes:

Harry Palmr

Here's an article from Nature which outlines the practical challenges for a global plant of 1 trillion trees, obviously many of the practicalities exist at a smaller level of a given nation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06031-x

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect, both of you are missing the point of Eskimo's interest in trees - there are required to hide the fact that primary source documents are available which prove that dismantling the NHS and the Welfare State and selling off the profitable parts while allowing the unprofitable to whither due to lack of funding was a dream of Margaret Tony 'The NHS is safe with us' Thatcher Blair and these docs demonstrate the Tories Labour have 'form' in this area ... and lie about it... even to their own colleagues...

Fixed.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

And this is how Johnson submits himself to media scrutiny. Gas that he didn't realise he was on camera. Can't wait for the CCHQ version starring Michael Gove as Boris and Stanley Johnson as Nick Ferrari.

Thank goodness I'm here to identify these errors for our readers.

This is simply not true.

It was fully explained on air that Boris was mimicking Nick Ferrari, who was making that sign to a producer.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

...which is why Labour privatised the NHS in their decade in power after Margaret Thatcher.

Labour ended up more Tory than the Tories.

It's Labour who has "form in this area". :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: indeed.

Late in 2002 Lady Thatcher came to Hampshire to speak at a dinner for me. Taking her round at the reception one of the guests asked her what was her greatest achievement. She replied, "Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds."

https://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/making-history.html

Poster A says: "The Tories support the NHS and the principle of the welfare state, albeit less enthusiastically than the Left.

The notion that the Tories are more right wing than Americans is so daft.

Not even Thatcher dared to undo the NHS for example."

This is proven to be factually incorrect.

Poster B : Labour are talking rubbish about trees!!

also Poster B: but Labour sold off some of the NHS...


Did I say they didn't?

No.

I demonstrated that the NHS and Welfare State was not safe under Thatcher as had been claimed.

Joe_ Public

Pere johnson still out batting for night watchman fils. Couple of interesting lines. Insults ordinary british people and says,well, he's only trying to do it in a humerous way. Which is the thing they dont get isnt it, its humerous to them and their elitist pals, not so much to those who are the butt of their no doubt superior wit and erudition.

Then says he is amazed that they broadcast a tweet saying the pm is lying. But is he not equally amazed the pm can simply lie with impunity and imagine he can get away scot free with it?

https://twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1200360662674763776?s=20

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Even with acorns, the figure of 2 billion is plucked high from the sky.

Furthermore, the policy isn't "there will be 2 billion trees"; it's that 2 billion trees will "be planted".

Even the Guardian described the policy as "ambitious", which, for that Left-wing outlet, is code term for "unrealistic".

Furthermore planting trees must also come with responsible management. It's not a management-free issue; it has impacts on the environment, sometimes negative if handled poorly.

Ah now Eskimo, I thought you were all in favour of ignoring past evidence on the basis of there is always a possibility,

You only ever seem to have doubts when it comes to Non Tory plans.

hotmail.com

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.. it's never wise to make statements like that without checking first... not when there are historians lurking...

Treasury docs prove she not only dared, she was also rather keen on privatising the welfare state while she was about it. Even when her own cabinet revolted, she tried to get sneaky about it.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/25/margaret-thatcher-pushed-for-breakup-of-welfare-state-despite-nhs-pledge

So the mainstream party opposed her and she dropped the idea.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Even with acorns, the figure of 2 billion is plucked high from the sky.

Furthermore, the policy isn't "there will be 2 billion trees"; it's that 2 billion trees will "be planted".

Even the Guardian described the policy as "ambitious", which, for that Left-wing outlet, is code term for "unrealistic".

Furthermore planting trees must also come with responsible management. It's not a management-free issue; it has impacts on the environment, sometimes negative if handled poorly.

Ambitious is not equal to unrealistic. The Guardian article did not say it was unrealistic. You call other people out when the misrepresent facts (in your opinion) and that's exactly what you're doing here. Can you point to any credible source that states planting this number of trees is not possible?

As pointed out Ethiopia planted 350M trees in one day. 2 billion over 20 years is perfectly plausible based on those metrics.

It seems like you just want to attack a Labour policy with absolutely no evidence to back yourself up. It's your opinion, nothing more.

The U.K. is going to become a very very crowded place with all these new hospitals, houses, schools and trees

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

The U.K. is going to become a very very crowded place with all these new hospitals, houses, schools and trees

No, all the foreigners will go gone, innit!

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Poster A says: "The Tories support the NHS and the principle of the welfare state, albeit less enthusiastically than the Left.

The notion that the Tories are more right wing than Americans is so daft.

Not even Thatcher dared to undo the NHS for example."

I demonstrated that the NHS and Welfare State was not safe under Thatcher as had been claimed.

I don't think it was any great secret that Margaret Thatcher was in favour of some degree of NHS privatisation. Every Conservative worth their salt will make the argument - a legitimate and powerful argument - that some degree of privatisation within the NHS can be a good thing.

My objection is the complete whitewashing of the issue, overtly focussing on Thatcher whilst failing to concede that Labour did far more to privatise the NHS and not only "dared" to do it, but did it. So, if we were to just read your comment about Lady Thatcher, it would give the misleading impression that it's somehow a "Tory problem" - which it isn't, and which you've admitted.

The wider point - that the Tories are privately yearning for an American-style healthcare system is beyond the pale. It isn't true, and even if it were, it would never have the opportunity to come about. There is no public appetite for it and any party that did would be wiped out at the next election. So, let's keep things in perspective and not fearmonger about what isn't going to happen.

johnnyskeleton

Just watching the latest Tory(ish) statement with Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Labour's Gisela Stuart probably proves the witticism about the Tories to be true - the best thing they can do to win the election is to shut up:

Gove repeating the same old 350m lie, only saying that it is a gross figure (i.e. prior to rebate) and seems to be blaming the EU for the policies of successive governments in the U.K. to ignore regional development. Amazing that they can get away with this stuff when it has been refuted so, so many times, and even its prime originators have admitted that it was false.

Gisela Stuart saying "I'm not a Tory, but think you should vote for them". I wonder is this an attempt to attack the Brexit Party who are running in Labour seats, effectively saying that dissaffected Labour supports should vote Tory!

Boris saying that his deal means that they don't have to pay money into the EU! Madness

Bannasidhe

hotmail.com wrote: »

So the mainstream party opposed her and she dropped the idea.

Did you actually read the article or even click on the link?
If you had you would have seen this first paragraph

Margaret Thatcher secretly tried to press ahead with a politically toxic plan to dismantle the welfare state even after a “cabinet riot”

That says the very opposite of 'dropped the idea'. Thatcher did not 'drop the idea' - she was blocked.

And the fact remains - Margaret Thatcher wished to dismantle and sell of the NHS and Welfare State. The fact that she was prevented by doing so by her own colleagues does not change that.

Rather like Johnson was prevented from crashing out of the EU by his own colleagues. Who he then got rid of...

Joe_ Public

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just watching the latest Tory(ish) statement with Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Labour's Gisela Stuart probably proves the witticism about the Tories to be true - the best thing they can do to win the election is to shut up:

Gove repeating the same old 350m lie, only saying that it is a gross figure (i.e. prior to rebate) and seems to be blaming the EU for the policies of successive governments in the U.K. to ignore regional development. Amazing that they can get away with this stuff when it has been refuted so, so many times, and even its prime originators have admitted that it was false.

Gisela Stuart saying "I'm not a Tory, but think you should vote for them". I wonder is this an attempt to attack the Brexit Party who are running in Labour seats, effectively saying that dissaffected Labour supports should vote Tory!

Boris saying that his deal means that they don't have to pay money into the EU! Madness

Gisela Stuart was johnsons colleague in the vote leave campaign which broke the law and was then allegedly helped by johnson to get a big job in the uk's foreign policy office. How she can say she still has labour values is beyond me. Hate to think she might still have some influence with traditional labour voters in leave areas, but you never know.

Bannasidhe

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Tories support the NHS and the principle of the welfare state, albeit less enthusiastically than the Left.

The notion that the Tories are more right wing than Americans is so daft.

Not even Thatcher dared to undo the NHS for example.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Treasury docs prove she not only dared, she was also rather keen on privatising the welfare state while she was about it. Even when her own cabinet revolted, she tried to get sneaky about it.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/25/margaret-thatcher-pushed-for-breakup-of-welfare-state-despite-nhs-pledge

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think it was any great secret that Margaret Thatcher was in favour of some degree of NHS privatisation. Every Conservative worth their salt will make the argument - a legitimate and powerful argument - that some degree of privatisation within the NHS can be a good thing.

I was responding to a specific post which made a very specific claim - a post you thanked by the way.
I demonstrated this specific claim was incorrect.

I did not say at any point that Blair's Labour govt didn't sell off part of the NHS. I made no reference to Blair as no claim had been made about Blair. The claim was made about Thatcher.
If such a specific claim had been made about Blair I would have responded to that specific claim.

I am the last person who would defend Tony Blair.

10000maniacs

The Tories are now threatening Channel 4's broadcasting remit which comes up for renewal in three years time.
They did something similar to the BBC in 2010 when they were a balanced broadcaster and gave Cameron a hard time during the run-in to the election. Look at the BBC now.
Beggars belief.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

No, all the foreigners will go gone, innit!

To be shure?

A Dub in Glasgo

Good article which summarises the campaign so far (two journalists for OpenDemocracy have contributed it for the New York Times)

'As a result, the British electorate is dazed and weary. Arguably the most significant election in a generation — to Brexit or not to Brexit? — has been reduced to social media sound bites designed by well-paid political consultants. It doesn’t matter whether the message is false; all that matters is that it is repeated often enough.

All this deception, distortion and disinformation might well help the Conservatives, whose poll lead has barely budged despite its dubious campaign, win the general election.

But at what cost?'

https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1200381261686169600

Joe_ Public

"We are in discussions with the bbc" about an Andrew neil interview, says conservative minister on politics live. What is there to discuss? Either do it or face derision for not turning up. Nothing to discuss about it, unless you are looking for conditions to attach to it.

hotmail.com

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did you actually read the article or even click on the link?
If you had you would have seen this first paragraph



That says the very opposite of 'dropped the idea'. Thatcher did not 'drop the idea' - she was blocked.

And the fact remains - Margaret Thatcher wished to dismantle and sell of the NHS and Welfare State. The fact that she was prevented by doing so by her own colleagues does not change that.

Rather like Johnson was prevented from crashing out of the EU by his own colleagues. Who he then got rid of...

I think it is crucial that the Tory party itself blocked any plans to undo the NHS. The party in the main is not anti NHS.

My original point was about the idea that the Tories are more right wing than American right wingers. I feel that's not true at all.

hotmail.com

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"We are in discussions with the bbc" about an Andrew neil interview, says conservative minister on politics live. What is there to discuss? Either do it or face derision for not turning up. Nothing to discuss about it, unless you are looking for conditions to attach to it.

This is all wonderful news for the Tories - keep talking about an interview rather than analyse their policies.

Joe_ Public

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is all wonderful news for the Tories - keep talking about an interview rather than analyse their policies.

That would presuppose they actually have more than a couple of policies worth analysing anyway. You've seen the manifesto yeah?

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

The wider point - that the Tories are privately yearning for an American-style healthcare system is beyond the pale. It isn't true, and even if it were, it would never have the opportunity to come about. There is no public appetite for it and any party that did would be wiped out at the next election. So, let's keep things in perspective and not fear monger about what isn't going to happen.

That is the opposite of the case.

It is not the Tories looking for as American style healthcare system - it is the Americans looking for the UK NHS to become an American style healthcare system - dominated by American healthcare companies and making American level profits from it. Then American Healthcare Insurance will move in and become the norm (for those that can afford it).

The poor will just get sick and die. They will probably be the same part of the population that live in areas where coal mines and steel works once provided employment, and used to benefit from EU regional aid.

Oh well, they had their chance to stop Brexit.

ArmaniJeanss

Panelbase Wednesday/Thursday this week (therefore post Andrew Neil interview)
Previous figures from a week ago.

CON: 42% (-)
LAB: 34% (+2)
LDEM: 13% (-1)
BREX: 4% (+1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

Still looking good for Johnson, would translate to around 345 seats. Slight momentum with Labour but not really making any inroads in the Conservative vote.

Labour would need to get that gap down to around 5 points to bring a hung parliament into play, and down to around 1 to 2 points to be a plausible winner (Labour can win with a lesser percentage because Tories win more seats with big majorities & turnout %)

I think many people here are missing the point with this election.

This isn't an election to be Pope; so focussing on how many affairs Johnson has had, or what he is economical with the truth about, is not what voters care about. The more the media try to bash Johnson, the more popular he is likely to become with the electorate - ditto with what happened with Trump in the US.

It feeds into the narrative of Johnson versus an Establishment.

Furthermore, the UK electorate do not want a Neo-Marxist, terrorist sympathiser to lead the country. They just don't. They didn't want it in 2017 and, judging from the YouGov Poll, they want it even less now. If there was an election in 2024 and Corbyn was still leader, support for the above would fall yet further.

Bannasidhe

hotmail.com wrote: »

I think it is crucial that the Tory party itself blocked any plans to undo the NHS. The party in the main is not anti NHS.

My original point was about the idea that the Tories are more right wing than American right wingers. I feel that's not true at all.

Some of them are.
Some of them are wetter than a weekend in Skegness.
What is indisputable is the current incarnation of the Conservative Party is not a welcoming place for the damp ones.

You really should have checked before referencing Thatcher and making grandiose claims- that is also indisputable.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Panelbase Wednesday/Thursday this week (therefore post Andrew Neil interview)
Previous figures from a week ago.

CON: 42% (-)
LAB: 34% (+2)
LDEM: 13% (-1)
BREX: 4% (+1)
GRN: 3% (+1)

Still looking good for Johnson, would translate to around 345 seats. Slight momentum with Labour but not really making any inroads in the Conservative vote.

Labour would need to get that gap down to around 5 points to bring a hung parliament into play, and down to around 1 to 2 points to be a plausible winner (Labour can win with a lesser percentage because Tories win more seats with big majorities & turnout %)

42% is what tories had in 2017 i think (or maybe 43), so they're not way ahead of where they were in terms of vote share. That much anticipated you gov poll suggested they'd struggle to get a majority with less than an 8 point lead. So dont really know why so many people are calling 50-60+ majorities so far out from polling day.