General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

I'd say principally Labour for their utter lack of credible opposition.

At least some semblence of realism has emerged.

From their actions, policies, and utter contempt for ordinary voters, the excavation of the political death of the Labour Party - as it now stands - is already underway.

And thank goodness for that.

BonnieSituation

schmittel wrote: »

The Tories have no polices at all (other than Get Brexit Done) let alone any gems.

They have obviously decide their best election strategy is say or do nothing, make no commitments on anything, avoid leaders debates etc and pray they can get through the election campaign without too many gaffes and thus secure their majority.

We can mock that all we like and comment intelligently about awful it makes the Tories etc etc etc.

But the fact remains that the polls and the bookies still think most likely outcome is a Tory majority.

If that is indeed the outcome and the Tories manage to win a majority based on thin and air waffle who is to blame?

I'd say principally Labour for their utter lack of credible opposition.

I'm sorry Schmittel. But I asked eskimohunt.

---

My dearest Mr Hunt, if Labour's policies are so zany, then surely Tory policies are not, and thus, are an easy sell.

So you wouldn't mind highlighting some of the gems that are ahead of us when the Tories win a stonking great majority?

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

The Tories have no polices at all (other than Get Brexit Done) let alone any gems.

They have obviously decide their best election strategy is say or do nothing, make no commitments on anything, avoid leaders debates etc and pray they can get through the election campaign without too many gaffes and thus secure their majority.

We can mock that all we like and comment intelligently about awful it makes the Tories etc etc etc.

But the fact remains that the polls and the bookies still think most likely outcome is a Tory majority.

If that is indeed the outcome and the Tories manage to win a majority based on thin and air waffle who is to blame?

I'd say principally Labour for their utter lack of credible opposition.

I’d say the British media which has for the most part been an utter disgrace. The British public are severely misinformed to a worrying degree.

Labour will be as much to blame if they lose as the EU was to blame for the referendum result.

With that said there is still hope as more people educate themselves the polls are getting gradually closer every day.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

It's complete nonsense.

• "Expresses support" for Victor Orban is not a "far-right" issue.
• Sexism exists in every party, at every level, in every place.
• Even if a few candidates RT that idiot Robinson, it doesn't make the entire Tory party and its supporters "far right".
• Death penalty? I'd say that should be imposed on lunatic Islamic fascists myself.

You could make the exact same arguments with regards to Labour. And this is the bit that gets me about you Eskimo. You are so biased against Labour. Fine to not like their policies, but at least be consistent in your evaluation.

• "Expresses support" for Palestine is not a "anti-semitic" issue.
• Sexism exists in every party, at every level, in every place.
• Even if a few candidates RT anti-semitic nonsense, it doesn't make the entire Labour party and its supporters "anti-semitic".

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

"A mere vote to Leave the EU would trigger economic chaos, an emergency budget and untold, long-term damage to the UK economy".

Flat-out-lies.

The Tories have a better record than the Remain campaign.

Second, the UK is performing better than many EU countries, including Germany. Whilst you can selectively pick-&-mix the statistics that align with your politics, we cannot escape these inescapable facts. When you compare the UK to most European countries, the UK is performing far, far better than the Remain Elite projected.

The Tories have a terrible record. What have they promised that happened? They failed to deliver brexit, which they promised (led by Johnson voting against the government). They failed to build social housing. Food bank have continued to rise. Taxes haven't reduced. NHS waiting times are the longest in history.

And why do you compare the UK to the rest of EU? Surely as a Brexiteer you view the EU as a disaster, holding the UK back. So why not compare to the US, or China? Look at the US, growth of circa 2%+. What is it in the UK at the moment?

And one needs to take on board that the EU is being hurt by the UK's decision to leave, and then to make such a mess of it such that they still haven't left and has sucked countless resources away from the EU. It is no surprise that EU is struggling when there is so much uncertainty.

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you are perfectly willing to ignore the claim, that economic Remainers made that the UK economy - by a mere vote to Leave - would be subject to economic chaos, an emergency budget and so forth? Are you willing to concede this was completely wrong and, as I would suggest, weaponised to ensure the public voted in one direction?

Second, the UK economy is performing better than the EU - including Germany, which is on the verge of recession. After the calamity of 2009+, are you willing to concede that the UK economy, as it stands, is in a relatively powerful position and, perhaps more importantly, more powerful than it was predicted it would be in a post-Leave vote?

You use words such as "destructive" etc. - emotive language. Yet the UK economy is performing comparably exceptionally well.

In other words, what you say does not align with what is happening on the economic ground.

Can you provide anything to support the claim that the UK economy is doing exceptionally well? Because everything I've seen would disagree with that statement.

Approximately 1 trillion dollars worth of assets have already been moved out of the UK banking sector and into the EU. That's 10% of the entire UK banking sector. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/investing/brexit-banks-moving-assets/index.html

Jobs created by inward investment has fallen 19% since the Brexit vote. Foreign capital investment has fallen by 30%. https://www.ft.com/content/bdc9f940-bb92-11e9-b350-db00d509634e

Claims by Brexiteers that devaluation of Sterling would be good for the economy proved (unsurprisingly) incorrect. "Higher import prices squeezed real incomes and a rise in exports was shortlived" "In the two years since Article 50 was triggered, real incomes of those below retirement age fell at the fastest rate ever outside of a recession" https://www.ft.com/content/9d4265b4-a949-11e9-b6ee-3cdf3174eb89

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

Unlawful is not the same as illegal. Moreover, the attorney general claimed, at the time, it was lawful. Not Johnson's fault.

People versus parliament was instigated by Remainers who refuse to accept the result of the 2016 referendum.

Yes, Channel 4 was overtly biased and contravened its remit. It must be apprehended for its violation of laws relating to media bias.

Continue the long list; it still won't resemble the Fourth Reich and the far-right fanaticism you maniacally attribute to the modern, One Nation Conservative Party.

So when the Torys have been found by the Supreme Court to have acted unlawfully when they prorogued parliament that's no big deal, but when the Torys claim that Channel 4 acted unlawfully that's unacceptable? Do you honestly not see how hypocritical your position is?

How do you expect anyone on here to take your posts seriously when you're just parroting the Tory press office?

CelticRambler

BonnieSituation wrote: »

My dearest Mr Hunt, if Labour's policies are so zany, then surely Tory policies are not, and thus, are an easy sell.

So you wouldn't mind highlighting some of the gems that are ahead of us when the Tories win a stonking great majority?

That isn't an entirely fair demand of eskimo, who has previously stated his dislike for FPTP, under which system "winning" isn't about being better than the opposition but "less bad." As schmittel has identified, the Tories have figured out that their best strategy, in this era of rampant and unregulated social media disinformation campaigning, is to have no significant policies; rather, to invest all their resources in terrorising the electorate into what might happen if they elect Corbyn.

One could argue that the Lib Dem's greatest sin is that they've played into the dirty hands of the Tories, who've leveraged Swinson's direct attacks on Corbyn to heighten this fear. You only need to look at how often eskimo invokes the "but under Corbyn" mantra - regardless of how true or false is the succeeding assertion - to see how successful this strategy has been. It doesn't matter whether a false allegation comes from Swinson, Johnson or Farage, it makes the Tory devil you know a better one than the Corbyn one you'll wish you'd never unleashed.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Government policy since Blair has been to push the majority of spending on the railways to the farepayer over the taxpayer. This has been supported and continued by the Tories... that is why the cost to the farepayer is so high

and the alternative is what, use the Irish model where the state borrows money increasing national debt and then builds the infrastructure?

How is that working out for Irish rail? When do you think we will get Metro North or the Dart Underground?

Private water companies can also borrow money without adding to the national debt, which is what was supposed to happen with Irish water. Instead we have hundreds of thousands of people, in one of the richest countries in the europe, having to boil their tap water.

You can take privatisation too far and I think that at times, this has happened, but there seems to be a real belief that privatisation=profit for big business=bad which most certainly isn't the case.

prawnsambo

Things that the Tories have presided over for the last ten years:

• Reduction of 20,000 police in England and Wales.
• Increase in knife crime of 42%.
• Real wages still below pre-recession levels.
• Education spending in real terms per pupil down by 8%.
• Waiting lists for hospital admissions increasing year on year to now record levels.
• And waiting times in A and E have increased in the same period.
• Local authority spending in real terms has fallen by 30% per person.
• Child poverty and infant mortality have been on the rise since 2013.
• Personal insolvencies have risen almost to the levels caused by the recession.
• House building rates have still not reached pre-crash levels.
• Racial and religious hate crimes rising rapidly. Hitting peaks of 50% increase or more.
• Over 300 courts closed due to lack of funding. Another two closed today (Canterbury and Hove) because the heating system broke down. Many are closed because of leaking roofs and other maintenance issues.

prawnsambo

Tactical voting as a strategy appears to be gaining traction amongst Labour and LibDem voters. Saw a survey result earlier that said 55% of LD voters and 48% of Labour voters were saying they would vote tactically. And because of the burgeoning number of tactical voting sites, a new aggregator site has been launched that compares them all to give an overall view of how to vote tactically in every constituency. Very useful way of showing which ones are, well... a bit dodgy.

ArmaniJeanss

Kantar, polling from Friday to Monday.

CON: 44% (+1)
LAB: 32% (-)
LDEM: 15% (+1)
GRN: 3% (-1)
BREX: 2% (-1)

Increasingly looking like a done deal.
Though as a note of caution Kantar have consistently been a moderate outlier, they were 18pts lead for the Tories a few weeks ago, 11 last week when others were in single digits. But they may be the 'correct one' this time.

Berserker5

prawnsambo wrote: »

Things that the Tories have presided over for the last ten years:

• Reduction of 20,000 police in England and Wales.
• Increase in knife crime of 42%.
• Real wages still below pre-recession levels.
• Education spending in real terms per pupil down by 8%.
• Waiting lists for hospital admissions increasing year on year to now record levels.
• And waiting times in A and E have increased in the same period.
• Local authority spending in real terms has fallen by 30% per person.
• Child poverty and infant mortality have been on the rise since 2013.
• Personal insolvencies have risen almost to the levels caused by the recession.
• House building rates have still not reached pre-crash levels.
• Racial and religious hate crimes rising rapidly. Hitting peaks of 50% increase or more.
• Over 300 courts closed due to lack of funding. Another two closed today (Canterbury and Hove) because the heating system broke down. Many are closed because of leaking roofs and other maintenance issues.

Cuts to prison service , probation services , welfare

Was it the conservatives used to call themselves the 'law and order party'

I can't remember, seems a long time since I heard the slogan

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

Tactical voting as a strategy appears to be gaining traction amongst Labour and LibDem voters. Saw a survey result earlier that said 55% of LD voters and 48% of Labour voters were saying they would vote tactically. And because of the burgeoning number of tactical voting sites, a new aggregator site has been launched that compares them all to give an overall view of how to vote tactically in every constituency. Very useful way of showing which ones are, well... a bit dodgy.

That's the best hope of avoiding a Tory majority. Similarly, Labour need to siphon off Remain voters from the Lib Dems in marginal seats by being a proper Remain party. But Corbyn.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Without going OT, privatisation in of itself is not the problem. Allowing the privatisation to be a monopoly and undervaluing the inherent value of the assets is the problem.

For example, there is nothing wrong with private healthcare. If people want to pay to stay in a private room or have a nurse on call then grand. The issue is that private should not be the only real option. If, using the railway example, the only option of a journey is the one company, then that company should be very tightly controlled and overseen to ensure that they are delivering the public remit that they effectively took on as part of the privatisation.

this is where Labour are treating people like fools.

Privatisation of healthcare and privatisation of the NHS are two very very different things.

There is currently a fully functioning private healthcare option for people in the UK. This is completely separate from the NHS and receives no funding from the government. If people want to avail of this option,then that is their decision and they have to pay for it in full, or take out their own healthcare options.

Privatisation in the NHS has been in place for years and just means that the NHS use private organisations to provide the services that the NHS pay for. To look at it's most basic form, once upon a time, food and cleaning staff were employed by the NHS, now they are employed by private companies to deliver a clearly defined service. This extends to a lot of care facilities as well, to organisations like the Priory Group for example.

what labour like to call the Privatisation of the NHS is, in reality outsourcing of non core competencies, which if managed correctly works absolutely fine.

Joe_ Public

Not something that gains a lot of traction but i was glad to see Marr bring up the subject of public libraries during his interview on sunday. Under this government the number of libraries closed is said to be 500. That is simply staggering. Johnson scurrilously tried to put the blame on local councils, but leaving aside the issue of funding, the fact is libraries are under the remit of central government through the 1964 Public Libraries Act. This is all on the tories. We are so blessed in this country to have a great library service that is receiving investment and is being expanded, though can always be better.

quokula

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's the best hope of avoiding a Tory majority. Similarly, Labour need to siphon off Remain voters from the Lib Dems in marginal seats by being a proper Remain party. But Corbyn.

If Labour become a "proper remain party" and completely disregard more than 50% of voters, that's the end of any hope of stopping the Tories.

They're already pushing against Brexit as much as is feasibly possible by promising a second referendum.

Berserker5

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not something that gains a lot of traction but i was glad to see Marr bring up the subject of public libraries during his interview on sunday. Under this government the number of libraries closed is said to be 500. That is simply staggering. Johnson scurrilously tried to put the blame on local councils, but leaving aside the issue of funding, the fact is libraries are under the remit of central government through the 1964 Public Libraries Act. This is all on the tories. We are so blessed in this country to have a great library service that is receiving investment and is being expanded, though can always be better.

2 of standout memories as a child in the UK

Great public swimming pools and fantastic local libraries

Professor Moriarty

quokula wrote: »

If Labour become a "proper remain party" and completely disregard more than 50% of voters, that's the end of any hope of stopping the Tories.

They're already pushing against Brexit as much as is feasibly possible by promising a second referendum.

How will they be disregarding 50% of voters?

Zubeneschamali

quokula wrote: »

If Labour become a "proper remain party" and completely disregard more than 50% of voters, that's the end of any hope of stopping the Tories.

How's that fence sitting policy working out for them?

As it stands,it looks as if they are going to lose, Brexit will happen and Labour aren't even opposed to it, so will struggle to make the damage done stick to the Tories.

sid waddell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How's that fence sitting policy working out for them?

As it stands,it looks as if they are going to lose, Brexit will happen and Labour aren't even opposed to it, so will struggle to make the damage done stick to the Tories.

Labour's inbuilt problem with Brexit is that it's estimated that 406 constituencies voted Leave and 242 voted Remain.

And a lot of those Remain contituencies are in Scotland (58), Wales (12) and Northern Ireland (11), I think it's 81.

So that means only 161 English constituencies voted to Remain.

Is an explicit Remain stance going to be successful with retaining the votes of Labour leavers in midlands and northern marginals?

This is not a Corbyn problem, this is a problem any Labour leader would have.

prawnsambo

sid waddell wrote: »

Labour's inbuilt problem with Brexit is that it's estimated that 406 constituencies voted Leave and 242 voted Remain.

And a lot of those Remain contituencies are in Scotland (58), Wales (12) and Northern Ireland (11), I think it's 81.

So that means only 161 English constituencies voted to Remain.

Is an explicit Remain stance going to be successful with retaining the votes of Labour leavers in midlands and northern marginals?

This is not a Corbyn problem, this is a problem any Labour leader would have.

It's a Corbyn problem dating back to his wishy-washy campaign for remain in the referendum. He sat on the fence then because he was ideologically opposed to the EU even though his party policy was remain. So he has reaped what he sowed.

Zubeneschamali

sid waddell wrote: »

Is an explicit Remain stance going to be successful with retaining the votes of Labour leavers in midlands and northern marginals?

This is not a Corbyn problem, this is a problem any Labour leader would have.

Sometimes a leader has to actually lead - tell people what is true and right and do their best to get people to follow their lead.

This whole idea that Labour were Remain in the Referendum (feeble, but still Remain) but should immediately scamper after the Leave vote because it won a non-binding referendum just cedes the whole Leave-Remain debate to the Leave side.

Which, if Brexit does in fact happen, is going to end the UK, and leave Labour in a hostile, xenophobic, right wing Tory dominated England.

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sometimes a leader has to actually lead - tell people what is true and right and do their best to get people to follow their lead.

This whole idea that Labour were Remain in the Referendum (feeble, but still Remain) but should immediately scamper after the Leave vote because it won a non-binding referendum just cedes the whole Leave-Remain debate to the Leave side.

Which, if Brexit does in fact happen, is going to end the UK, and leave Labour in a hostile, xenophobic, right wing Tory dominated England.

All he had to say was that the referendum was a Tory idea to fix a Tory problem and that anyone who voted to leave would be enabling the Tories to continue to decimate the welfare state.

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's a Corbyn problem dating back to his wishy-washy campaign for remain in the referendum.

And his actions immediately after the Referendum: calling for the immediate triggering of Article 50 (insane) and committing the Party to Brexit in the 2017 manifesto (stupid).

CelticRambler

Maybe it's not necessarily a bad situation for Labour if the Tories win this election and preside over Brexit and the break-up of the UK in the half-decade to come. As a party, what exactly does Labour have to gain from winning this election? They'll spend all of the first year bogged down in the pre-Brexit quagmire just like the Tories, before moving on to either a revocation of the project and taking the heat for that, or leaving the EU and setting up the Kingdom for an NI Border Poll and a Scottish IndyRef2. Five years later, the Tories will be able to point the finger at Labour and say (without any hint of irony :rolleyes: ) "see - we told you Labour would destroy the country"

The alternative is to half-heartedly fight the good fight, graciously concede defeat on the 13th December, wait five years and then point a finger at the Tories, saying "look what they've done to the country!" Westminster without NI and Scottish MPs would offer Labour a greater chance of recovering their lost majority - as long as the Welsh don't go getting all nationalistic and wanting to do something crazy like declare independence and join the EU! :pac:

Zubeneschamali

CelticRambler wrote: »

As a party, what exactly does Labour have to gain from winning this election?

If Scotland leaves the UK, the Tories will have a majority in England for a generation.

robinph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If Scotland leaves the UK, the Tories will have a majority in England for a generation.

If Scotland leaves then it would be great if they could ensure some significant changes to the running of elections and structure of the Commons is included in their bill to leave, just as a parting gift so that things are re balanced a bit. It would be in their interest anyway.

Zubeneschamali

robinph wrote: »

If Scotland leaves then it would be great if they could ensure some significant changes to the running of elections and structure of the Commons is included in their bill to leave

Won't be their problem anymore - they can use whatever system they want in Edinburgh.

quokula

sid waddell wrote: »

Labour's inbuilt problem with Brexit is that it's estimated that 406 constituencies voted Leave and 242 voted Remain.

And a lot of those Remain contituencies are in Scotland (58), Wales (12) and Northern Ireland (11), I think it's 81.

So that means only 161 English constituencies voted to Remain.

Is an explicit Remain stance going to be successful with retaining the votes of Labour leavers in midlands and northern marginals?

This is not a Corbyn problem, this is a problem any Labour leader would have.

Agree with that.

I think a lot of people here don't realise what the view of Brexit is like in England - I do having lived there through the whole campaign and a couple of years after. You can't just completely ignore the majority of people who voted for Brexit and then expect them to elect you.

Sure, you can disagree with Brexit (and I do think it's a massive mistake), but there is a majority in favour and there is also a legitimate view among many remainers that there was a democratic vote that should be respected even if they don't like the outcome. A Tory Government will be pretty damaging but nobody expects Labour to blockade parliament and stop the result of an election being carried out if that happens.

The initial response from Labour (and people like Ken Clarke - as an aside it's interesting how he gets held up so often as praiseworthy by remainers who attack Corbyn, when the two of them have had almost identical positions) was that a 52-48 result was a mandate for a soft brexit (their 6 tests basically required it to come close to being met) and there was a chance for that in the early days.

However May disregarded that to pursue her red lines and positions have hardened since then with right wing media rhetoric trying to imply that Theresa May's hardline stance is actually a soft Brexit and only a no-deal result that breaks the GFA and decimates the economy is a true Brexit, leading Labour to move to a second referendum position. This may cost them the election if too many Leave constituencies flip, but it's hard to see where else they could have gone.

Promising a second referendum is by far the most remain-leaning policy possible for a party hoping to command a government in the UK - it's everything any remotely reasonable remainer could have asked for - so I always find it bizarre when people complain that they're not remain enough.