Org Mobile Site
Thread: UK General Election 2019
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
We could instead have seamus “bring the revolution” milne - commissar of citizen doctrinal purity!
easy choice.... :D
You probably have more positive feelings for Seumas (sic) Milne than I do. There's a man who was expelled by the British Communist Party for being extremist. If you want me to defend the current Labour leadership, you're out of luck. I'm more scathing about them than you could ever be.We could instead have seamus “bring the revolution” milne - commissar of citizen doctrinal purity!
easy choice.... :D
On that whole anti-Semitism vein. I saw a share on Facebook which appeared to be a Palestinian website (from name) saying about how apparently Boris Johnston is a Zionist who loves Israel. I didn't click or look further as I was busy looking for something work related but I was like "Yeah... No...".
Edit: Found the thing on Google http://www.palestinechronicle.com/bo...i-love-israel/
Edit: Found the thing on Google http://www.palestinechronicle.com/bo...i-love-israel/
You know, the one thing that confuses me more than anything else about the last 4 months is why Michael Gove wasnt taken behind the shed and shot, figuratively or otherwise.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
You know, the one thing that confuses me more than anything else about the last 4 months is why Michael Gove wasnt taken behind the shed and shot, figuratively or otherwise.
Gove is the only Tory frontbencher who can blag confidently. He may even have done a modicum of research. Every other Tory frontbencher equals Johnson in sheer bloody incompetence allied to expectation that people should listen to them anyway. Every competent Tory has been dropped, and a fair few of them will no longer stand.You know, the one thing that confuses me more than anything else about the last 4 months is why Michael Gove wasnt taken behind the shed and shot, figuratively or otherwise.
i like gove. :(
As a political actor I wouldnt want him anywhere near actual power or influence after being the jackass to give us the maybot for three years, Boris himself I would think would be extra wary of him.
As a person, I dunno, dont know much outside of his political context.
As a person, I dunno, dont know much outside of his political context.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
As a political actor I wouldnt want him anywhere near actual power or influence after being the jackass to give us the maybot for three years, Boris himself I would think would be extra wary of him.
As a person, I dunno, dont know much outside of his political context.
Do you prefer your politicians sound or competent?As a political actor I wouldnt want him anywhere near actual power or influence after being the jackass to give us the maybot for three years, Boris himself I would think would be extra wary of him.
As a person, I dunno, dont know much outside of his political context.
I dont think he is either, I am left ever wondering what madness drove his actions in the leadership election.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I dont think he is either, I am left ever wondering what madness drove his actions in the leadership election.
I'm not saying he's any good. I'm saying that, among the Tory frontbench, he's the only one who can pretend to be good at what he does. All the others, the PM included, are so clearly incompetent that it's staggering how they've managed to get these posts.I dont think he is either, I am left ever wondering what madness drove his actions in the leadership election.
I wouldnt know, most experience I have of the Tory front bench was under may and she dragged everyone down. The ones that stood out to me for being individually incompetent were the like of Rudd and Hammond, the ones now either on the back benches or on thier way out of parliament alltogether.
Also something tells me our definitions of incompetence might not be exactly the same, I dont like declaring what I dont agree with ideologically as incompetence; if they intended to mess up something I value can it be called incompetence that it is so messed up?
It makes judging ones like Blair difficult, when you judge by thier later revealed intentions their performance looks distressingly close to competence.
Also something tells me our definitions of incompetence might not be exactly the same, I dont like declaring what I dont agree with ideologically as incompetence; if they intended to mess up something I value can it be called incompetence that it is so messed up?
It makes judging ones like Blair difficult, when you judge by thier later revealed intentions their performance looks distressingly close to competence.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
I wouldnt know, most experience I have of the Tory front bench was under may and she dragged everyone down. The ones that stood out to me for being individually incompetent were the like of Rudd and Hammond, the ones now either on the back benches or on thier way out of parliament alltogether.
Also something tells me our definitions of incompetence might not be exactly the same, I dont like declaring what I dont agree with ideologically as incompetence; if they intended to mess up something I value can it be called incompetence that it is so messed up?
It makes judging ones like Blair difficult, when you judge by thier later revealed intentions their performance looks distressingly close to competence.
Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.I wouldnt know, most experience I have of the Tory front bench was under may and she dragged everyone down. The ones that stood out to me for being individually incompetent were the like of Rudd and Hammond, the ones now either on the back benches or on thier way out of parliament alltogether.
Also something tells me our definitions of incompetence might not be exactly the same, I dont like declaring what I dont agree with ideologically as incompetence; if they intended to mess up something I value can it be called incompetence that it is so messed up?
It makes judging ones like Blair difficult, when you judge by thier later revealed intentions their performance looks distressingly close to competence.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.
Reminds me of Bill Clinton. Clinton was known to lie when needed (frequently) but the media so loved him for how interestingly he spun his tales that it became a hallmark of his style. From what I read in some articles, Johnson garners that same fascinated amazement with what he is willing to say. To the extent that prevarication is part of effective leadership...Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Reminds me of Bill Clinton. Clinton was known to lie when needed (frequently) but the media so loved him for how interestingly he spun his tales that it became a hallmark of his style. From what I read in some articles, Johnson garners that same fascinated amazement with what he is willing to say. To the extent that prevarication is part of effective leadership...
The media hated Bill Clinton. Washington journalists were always talking about how they wanted to "take him down."Reminds me of Bill Clinton. Clinton was known to lie when needed (frequently) but the media so loved him for how interestingly he spun his tales that it became a hallmark of his style. From what I read in some articles, Johnson garners that same fascinated amazement with what he is willing to say. To the extent that prevarication is part of effective leadership...
Idaho, it is not as obvious that Corbyn can't be anti-Semitic as you seem to think. You only need to roast one goat kebab to be a goatfucker. Broad sympathy or suspicion is also racism, and there is clearly a problem if perhaps even a majority of Labour-supporting Jews judge either the party or the man anti-Semitic. In the first place if Corbyn wants to help dispel these unsavory auras he should learn to stop compartmentalizing and learn intersectionality. Just because someone is marginalized, sympathetic, or allied in one respect (e.g. Israeli repression) does not mean their whole worldview or character needs to be embraced or excused. His compartmentalizing mindset is, I would assume, also what contributes to that brain rot common among the nominal hard left of uncritically venerating nasty governments around the world so long as they are seen to be hostile in some way to the perennial imperialists in Europe and the USA. But I am disappointed by PVC's continued pretextual affective attacks on leftists.
What are your thoughts on the updated Labour manifesto?
Here's a comics guy's take on the election:
Originally Posted by :
Here’s something you don’t see every day: an internet-averse anarchist announcing on social media that he’ll be voting Labour in the December elections. But these are unprecedented times.
I’ve voted only once in my life, more than forty years ago, being convinced that leaders are mostly of benefit to no one save themselves. That said, some leaders are so unbelievably malevolent and catastrophic that they must be strenuously opposed by any means available. Put simply, I do not believe that four more years of these rapacious, smirking right-wing parasites will leave us with a culture, a society, or an environment in which we have the luxury of even imagining alternatives.
The wretched world we’re living in at present was not an unlucky turn of fate; it was an economic and political decision, made without consulting the enormous human population that it would most drastically affect. If we would have it otherwise, if we’d prefer a future that we can call home, then we must stop supporting – even passively – this ravenous, insatiable conservative agenda before it devours us with our kids as a dessert.
Although my vote is principally against the Tories rather than for Labour, I’d observe that Labour’s current manifesto is the most encouraging set of proposals that I’ve ever seen from any major British party. Though these are immensely complicated times and we are all uncertain as to which course we should take, I’d say the one that steers us furthest from the glaringly apparent iceberg is the safest bet.
If my work has meant anything to you over the years, if the way that modern life is going makes you fear for all the things you value, then please get out there on polling day and make your voice heard with a vote against this heartless trampling of everybody’s safety, dignity and dreams.
A world we love is counting on us.
Alan Moore,
Northampton,
November 20th, 2019.
Here’s something you don’t see every day: an internet-averse anarchist announcing on social media that he’ll be voting Labour in the December elections. But these are unprecedented times.
I’ve voted only once in my life, more than forty years ago, being convinced that leaders are mostly of benefit to no one save themselves. That said, some leaders are so unbelievably malevolent and catastrophic that they must be strenuously opposed by any means available. Put simply, I do not believe that four more years of these rapacious, smirking right-wing parasites will leave us with a culture, a society, or an environment in which we have the luxury of even imagining alternatives.
The wretched world we’re living in at present was not an unlucky turn of fate; it was an economic and political decision, made without consulting the enormous human population that it would most drastically affect. If we would have it otherwise, if we’d prefer a future that we can call home, then we must stop supporting – even passively – this ravenous, insatiable conservative agenda before it devours us with our kids as a dessert.
Although my vote is principally against the Tories rather than for Labour, I’d observe that Labour’s current manifesto is the most encouraging set of proposals that I’ve ever seen from any major British party. Though these are immensely complicated times and we are all uncertain as to which course we should take, I’d say the one that steers us furthest from the glaringly apparent iceberg is the safest bet.
If my work has meant anything to you over the years, if the way that modern life is going makes you fear for all the things you value, then please get out there on polling day and make your voice heard with a vote against this heartless trampling of everybody’s safety, dignity and dreams.
A world we love is counting on us.
Alan Moore,
Northampton,
November 20th, 2019.
It has come to my attention that the Cons will have a difficult go of not losing most of their Scottish seats. Also, what if the Labour voters that Johnson and Cummings are targeting just vote for the Brexit Party instead? That is, what if the narrow demographic at the center of the Conservative electoral strategy (the small minority of pro-Brexit Labour voters in contested districts) is more liable to weigh their simultaneous hatred of Tories and desire for Brexit against Johnson and for Farage? If that is the case then Farage's decision to run only in Labour constituencies may be of little help on net to Johnson, who expects to poach opposing votes and not just negate them. May redux?
the difference with GE17 is:
1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes
I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...
1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes
I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
the difference with GE17 is:
1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes
I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...
I'd largely agree with your points except 8. I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats. However it is so beyond the pale for the powerful media and economic interests that they paint it as extreme.the difference with GE17 is:
1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes
I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...
It's all pretty depressing. Working class people voting en masse for political interests who would push them through a sausage grinder. Same as trump in America - the media and the political search algorithm companies have gone to work. They know the buttons to click. How to keep people focused on the irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats.
however, we are not an orthodox western european country in which social democracy is quite closely tied with corpratist capitalism.I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats.
the manifesto is a jarring attempt at divergence from forty years of anglo-saxon capitalist orthodoxy.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I'd largely agree with your points except 8. I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats. However it is so beyond the pale for the powerful media and economic interests that they paint it as extreme.
It's all pretty depressing. Working class people voting en masse for political interests who would push them through a sausage grinder. Same as trump in America - the media and the political search algorithm companies have gone to work. They know the buttons to click. How to keep people focused on the irrelevant.
I think it's an extreme break in the direction of travel in the UK. It might be more moderate in terms of Scandinavia, but those countries haven't been running large deficits for over two decades now. It's a transformative manifesto at a time when people just wants Brexit resolved, one way or the other, and rising GDP.I'd largely agree with your points except 8. I think the manifesto is fairly orthodox in terms of Western European social democrats. However it is so beyond the pale for the powerful media and economic interests that they paint it as extreme.
It's all pretty depressing. Working class people voting en masse for political interests who would push them through a sausage grinder. Same as trump in America - the media and the political search algorithm companies have gone to work. They know the buttons to click. How to keep people focused on the irrelevant.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.
He's PM, despite the big hitters of his party attempting extreme action to prevent it, and now many of those same hitters are out altogether. With only one change he's got people accepting a form of brexit that everyone hates as inevitable, there's a certain amount of skill behind such achievments (depressing though the latter might be)Explain Boris Johnson. Show me how he's competent.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
He's PM, despite the big hitters of his party attempting extreme action to prevent it, and now many of those same hitters are out altogether. With only one change he's got people accepting a form of brexit that everyone hates as inevitable, there's a certain amount of skill behind such achievments (depressing though the latter might be)
Anything about governing a country?He's PM, despite the big hitters of his party attempting extreme action to prevent it, and now many of those same hitters are out altogether. With only one change he's got people accepting a form of brexit that everyone hates as inevitable, there's a certain amount of skill behind such achievments (depressing though the latter might be)
Well thats the thing, he hasnt governed a country before 3-4 months ago and he's spent the entire time under the shadow of parliament's refusal to end the economy-supressing uncertainty over brexit.
Before that he was a mixed foreign secretary and he was mayor of london for two terms. While generally considered much better than his successor I dont know how much that experience translates to the national level.
As is the way of things we wont have a clear picture of his performance in these months for a long time and things are likely to be much different once he wins in december. I do like some of his cabinate picks and he's making the right noises, just dont know if it will continue after.
Before that he was a mixed foreign secretary and he was mayor of london for two terms. While generally considered much better than his successor I dont know how much that experience translates to the national level.
As is the way of things we wont have a clear picture of his performance in these months for a long time and things are likely to be much different once he wins in december. I do like some of his cabinate picks and he's making the right noises, just dont know if it will continue after.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Well thats the thing, he hasnt governed a country before 3-4 months ago and he's spent the entire time under the shadow of parliament's refusal to end the economy-supressing uncertainty over brexit.
Before that he was a mixed foreign secretary and he was mayor of london for two terms. While generally considered much better than his successor I dont know how much that experience translates to the national level.
As is the way of things we wont have a clear picture of his performance in these months for a long time and things are likely to be much different once he wins in december. I do like some of his cabinate picks and he's making the right noises, just dont know if it will continue after.
How was his stint as foreign secretary? That, at least formally, had nothing to do with Brexit, as he was posted in various non-Brexit-related areas. As one of the four great offices of state (the third, after Prime Minister and Chancellor), it should be suitable training for Prime Ministership. How did he fare in that post?Well thats the thing, he hasnt governed a country before 3-4 months ago and he's spent the entire time under the shadow of parliament's refusal to end the economy-supressing uncertainty over brexit.
Before that he was a mixed foreign secretary and he was mayor of london for two terms. While generally considered much better than his successor I dont know how much that experience translates to the national level.
As is the way of things we wont have a clear picture of his performance in these months for a long time and things are likely to be much different once he wins in december. I do like some of his cabinate picks and he's making the right noises, just dont know if it will continue after.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
however, we are not an orthodox western european country in which social democracy is quite closely tied with corpratist capitalism.
the manifesto is a jarring attempt at divergence from forty years of anglo-saxon capitalist orthodoxy.
however, we are not an orthodox western european country in which social democracy is quite closely tied with corpratist capitalism.
the manifesto is a jarring attempt at divergence from forty years of anglo-saxon capitalist orthodoxy.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
I think it's an extreme break in the direction of travel in the UK. It might be more moderate in terms of Scandinavia, but those countries haven't been running large deficits for over two decades now. It's a transformative manifesto at a time when people just wants Brexit resolved, one way or the other, and rising GDP.
The last 40 years have seen a huge transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest. It's seen our politicians start off as wealthier and finish as super rich. It's seen the cult of wealth become entrenched. That these people were to be deferred to and revered. Yes the manifesto is a break from that! Too right!I think it's an extreme break in the direction of travel in the UK. It might be more moderate in terms of Scandinavia, but those countries haven't been running large deficits for over two decades now. It's a transformative manifesto at a time when people just wants Brexit resolved, one way or the other, and rising GDP.
It's not some Scandinavian normal. It's German, French and Dutch normal. I want a cohesive and mixed economy and society. I don't want huge wealth disparity with the vast majority scratching a poor living with pockets of dramatic wealth. You both want that because you fancy your chances of being in the closed circle of wealth.
Today in the news I heard that the first utility companies are moving share ownership abroad. Apparently this means that the Government can't swap shares for guilts based at the rate the Government wants.
And that is the problem we have as a country. Although movement towards a fairer system is a Good Idea, most plans seem to ignore most of reality - both that the targets will react to change as well as the fact the rest of the world exists.
Corbyn could force lower tariff prices for utilities. He could do the same for broadband - in exactly the same way he's going to increase the minimum wage without Nationalising all companies to do so. This might lower profits in these companies but it is relatively simple to do and requires no massive shift of money to achieve.
Another "simple" win (in theory) is having council tax brackets linked to the value of the building - or even better - the land the building is on. And if you want, add a multiplier for second homes and overseas ownership. Probably electoral suicide of course.
And that is the problem we have as a country. Although movement towards a fairer system is a Good Idea, most plans seem to ignore most of reality - both that the targets will react to change as well as the fact the rest of the world exists.
Corbyn could force lower tariff prices for utilities. He could do the same for broadband - in exactly the same way he's going to increase the minimum wage without Nationalising all companies to do so. This might lower profits in these companies but it is relatively simple to do and requires no massive shift of money to achieve.
Another "simple" win (in theory) is having council tax brackets linked to the value of the building - or even better - the land the building is on. And if you want, add a multiplier for second homes and overseas ownership. Probably electoral suicide of course.
50,000 more nurses!
"But you include 19,000 who are already nurses in that?"
50,000 more nurses!
"but how is it 50,000 more, when you already include 19,000 already in the NHS?"
50,000 more nurses!
"Explain..."
By retaining, there will be 50,000 more!
"Retention is an ongoing issue which needs to be done, but retaining a nurse doesn't mean you got 1 more nurse, it only means you don't need another Nurse..."
50,000 MORE NURSES!
"But you include 19,000 who are already nurses in that?"
50,000 more nurses!
"but how is it 50,000 more, when you already include 19,000 already in the NHS?"
50,000 more nurses!
"Explain..."
By retaining, there will be 50,000 more!
"Retention is an ongoing issue which needs to be done, but retaining a nurse doesn't mean you got 1 more nurse, it only means you don't need another Nurse..."
50,000 MORE NURSES!
Originally Posted by Beskar:
50,000 more nurses!
"But you include 19,000 who are already nurses in that?"
50,000 more nurses!
"but how is it 50,000 more, when you already include 19,000 already in the NHS?"
50,000 more nurses!
"Explain..."
By retaining, there will be 50,000 more!
"Retention is an ongoing issue which needs to be done, but retaining a nurse doesn't mean you got 1 more nurse, it only means you don't need another Nurse..."
50,000 MORE NURSES!
It's the new "Strong and stable".50,000 more nurses!
"But you include 19,000 who are already nurses in that?"
50,000 more nurses!
"but how is it 50,000 more, when you already include 19,000 already in the NHS?"
50,000 more nurses!
"Explain..."
By retaining, there will be 50,000 more!
"Retention is an ongoing issue which needs to be done, but retaining a nurse doesn't mean you got 1 more nurse, it only means you don't need another Nurse..."
50,000 MORE NURSES!
Tory deception.
Echoes his leader.
Presenter: This is about personal integrity and individual character. Does the truth matter in this election?
Boris Johnson: I think it does, and I think it very important.
Audience laughs at him.
Echoes his leader.
Presenter: This is about personal integrity and individual character. Does the truth matter in this election?
Boris Johnson: I think it does, and I think it very important.
Audience laughs at him.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
the difference with GE17 is:
1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes
I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...
A reasonable contribution, though many of these are contested, for example the statistical relevance of Labour-LibDem competition. Most broadly, I'm sure the trick Corbyn wants to pull off is to out-organize the Tories on the ground and close the polling gap in the immediate runup to the election - as he did in 2017. the difference with GE17 is:
1. Boris is a far more engaging character than May
2. They will not have a colossal mess up of a manifesto - will be deadly boring
3. We've now had four years of non-stop brexit - and Boris is offering his 'oven-ready' solution
4. Labour have done everything to poison their relationship with their heartland
5. Corbyn is now a dull attraction despite the extreme manifesto, where he used to be shiny and new
6. Brexit Party have also stood down in 30 key tory target seats, and how hard will they campaign in other key target seats
7. Scottish Tories will benefit from non-Tory Unionists who fear another Scottish ref (in addition to another EU one)!
8. The labour manifesto is an EXTREME break from the consensus of last forty years, now is a poor time to try it
9. Finally, the Lib-Dems will come dangerously close to (or even beyond!) 20% which will cannibalize Labour votes
I have argued for ten years now that Labour is losing relevance as [the] pole of opposition to right-wing tories in an adversarial political culture reinforced by a voting system the encourages binary politics, and that 2020 would be the election that nailed the coffin shut on the notion that they are the [default] left-wing alternative.
We're lucky to have a the Lib-Dems as a 0.5 party in a 2.5 party system, for it helps us avoid the downsides of an adversarial FPTP system as we see in the US. They're about to be seen in a different light...
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Today in the news I heard that the first utility companies are moving share ownership abroad. Apparently this means that the Government can't swap shares for guilts based at the rate the Government wants.
And that is the problem we have as a country. Although movement towards a fairer system is a Good Idea, most plans seem to ignore most of reality - both that the targets will react to change as well as the fact the rest of the world exists
The tactic being used here by some energy and water companies is to transfer operational ownership (not "share ownership," I'm not aware of a way that a company can do that without actually buying back shares) to holding entities in countries outside the EU with which the UK has bilateral investment treaties (or parties to the Energy Charter Treaty, which covers basically all of Europe). The motivation is to have a backstop in the form of recourse to treaty claims to arbitration, because most of these treaties reference "fair market value" with respect to nationalization and enable legal challenges in various forms against governments. I don't know how likely such arbitration would be to come in favor of the private owners, but the prospect of drawn-out litigation is clearly leveled as a deterrent to any perceived undervaluation by a Labour government. However, I don't see how any of this forecloses nationalization. Today in the news I heard that the first utility companies are moving share ownership abroad. Apparently this means that the Government can't swap shares for guilts based at the rate the Government wants.
And that is the problem we have as a country. Although movement towards a fairer system is a Good Idea, most plans seem to ignore most of reality - both that the targets will react to change as well as the fact the rest of the world exists
Originally Posted by :
Corbyn could force lower tariff prices for utilities. He could do the same for broadband - in exactly the same way he's going to increase the minimum wage without Nationalising all companies to do so. This might lower profits in these companies but it is relatively simple to do and requires no massive shift of money to achieve.
What are tariff prices? Prices on imported electricity? Corbyn could force lower tariff prices for utilities. He could do the same for broadband - in exactly the same way he's going to increase the minimum wage without Nationalising all companies to do so. This might lower profits in these companies but it is relatively simple to do and requires no massive shift of money to achieve.
Whether you agree with it or not the purpose of nationalization goes beyond providing marginal relief to consumers.
Originally Posted by :
Another "simple" win (in theory) is having council tax brackets linked to the value of the building - or even better - the land the building is on. And if you want, add a multiplier for second homes and overseas ownership. Probably electoral suicide of course.
How are council taxes assessed now, and how important are they? Looking at various info pages, council taxes (a fee for living in a neighborhood basically) are already assessed according to property valuation. Which seems kind of daft to me, since I gather that renters are subject to the same tax as owners. Or am I wrong?Another "simple" win (in theory) is having council tax brackets linked to the value of the building - or even better - the land the building is on. And if you want, add a multiplier for second homes and overseas ownership. Probably electoral suicide of course.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
How are council taxes assessed now, and how important are they? Looking at various info pages, council taxes (a fee for living in a neighborhood basically) are already assessed according to property valuation. Which seems kind of daft to me, since I gather that renters are subject to the same tax as owners. Or am I wrong?
Council tax is money raised by the local Council, I.E. Parish Council (or City Council); it varies by region. The burden falls on the occupier and because it's a charge for services renters pay the same as owners.How are council taxes assessed now, and how important are they? Looking at various info pages, council taxes (a fee for living in a neighborhood basically) are already assessed according to property valuation. Which seems kind of daft to me, since I gather that renters are subject to the same tax as owners. Or am I wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counci...he_Council_Tax
The problem is that there's is a top band on the valuation of the property - H in England (£320,000 and above), I in Wales (£424,001 and above) and H in Scotland (£212,001 and above). I'm sure you see the issue here given modern house prices. There are other issues, above-average inflation of the tax under Blair eroded incomes for the poorer people but not the most wealthy whilst caps and freezes since have eroded local government funding.
The Chief Rabbi declares Corbyn "unfit" though he stops short of outright accusing him of prejudice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...e-wake-labour/
for those outside the UK, the Chief Rabbi occupies a position somewhat analogous to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as a "moral voice" even outside Judaism. Lord Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi was especially respected.
In any case, senior Jewish members of the establishment usually follow the same precepts as their Christian counterparts and don't get involved in politics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...e-wake-labour/
for those outside the UK, the Chief Rabbi occupies a position somewhat analogous to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as a "moral voice" even outside Judaism. Lord Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi was especially respected.
In any case, senior Jewish members of the establishment usually follow the same precepts as their Christian counterparts and don't get involved in politics.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
The Chief Rabbi declares Corbyn "unfit" though he stops short of outright accusing him of prejudice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...e-wake-labour/
for those outside the UK, the Chief Rabbi occupies a position somewhat analogous to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as a "moral voice" even outside Judaism. Lord Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi was especially respected.
In any case, senior Jewish members of the establishment usually follow the same precepts as their Christian counterparts and don't get involved in politics.
He is also very Pro Israel and has never commented or criticised any of the extra judicial murders, the wider scale imprisonment without trial, the separation of families, the destruction of homes, the land grabs,etc etc.The Chief Rabbi declares Corbyn "unfit" though he stops short of outright accusing him of prejudice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...e-wake-labour/
for those outside the UK, the Chief Rabbi occupies a position somewhat analogous to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York as a "moral voice" even outside Judaism. Lord Sachs, the former Chief Rabbi was especially respected.
In any case, senior Jewish members of the establishment usually follow the same precepts as their Christian counterparts and don't get involved in politics.
If you aren't Jewish, it doesn't really matter as much.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO