UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
Depends how you define it. If "he's never in a million years going to be elected" counts then yes, he's unelectable.
Technically, it was later revised away: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23079082
But yes, the Osborne went too far and fast with his austerity policies which slowed the recovery. Labour rightly called this out at the time.
Ah, ok, had long-since forgotten about that- was a very late revision.
I think I must be one of the few people to miss Gordon Brown brand politics. Terrible politician but a quite brilliant man. (Gold mistake notwithstanding)
Yes. Blair bowed to him on the economy with good reason. He was a lot more to the left than most people thought for me, his use of means testing in particular seemed all wrong, but budget-wise it got things done.
Was the gold sale not an international decision? I thought the whole G7 or whatever did it, but just from memory, I'm no academic.
Why should I believe they couldn't deliver it? Or, to ask another question, why should I believe the Tories are any better equipped to lead?
The answer to both lie with the media once more. As an example, you'll often hear how Corbyn is a "terrorist sympathiser" yet a Tory MP went on strike recently to protest against inquests into atrocities committed against innocent civilians by British forces in Ireland. We're talking about people who killed innocent Catholics and then bragged about using their skulls as ashtrays here but staggeringly it's Corbyn and Labour that are the "terrorist sympathisers".
Similarly, claims of Corbyn/Labour antisemitism dominates the news these days yet little is made of Johnson's time as editor of The Spectator where he oversaw antisemitic articles and employed genuine anti-semites. Why isn't his Islamophobia as big a problem as Corbyn's antisemitism? Like when he claimed Malaysian women only go to university so they can find men to marry? Or calling muslim women "letterboxes"? Saying the Quran was intended to cause fear or that Islam is the problem when discussing terrorist attacks. Or just his general racism like when he said the Queen loves the Commonwealth because it "supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies with watermelon smiles" and that Nigerians are obsessed with money? Unsurprising comments though coming from leader of a party that had no problem with apartheid in South Africa.
What about Michael Gove who thinks people who require food banks bring it on themselves because they can't manage their finances properly? Or his claims that the Good Friday agreement is comparable with appeasement of the Nazis and desires of paedophiles.
All that without mentioning the absolute shambles that is Brexit which the Tory party flung upon us and have since proven unable to lead on. Why should I think these guys are any more capable than the opposition? Simply because I've been told to by a compliant media?
Indoctrinated by the smears that have been trumpeted in the media for the last 4 years.
- PQE can only happen if we leave the EU as it’s incompatible with the Lisbon Treaty. That’s not going to happen under a Labour government. What’s more it has never been mentioned further since the leaders election because the creation of the Economic Advisory Committee in the Labour party effectively killed it.
- Corbyn’s personal views on aggression in general are well known. They aren’t shared by any considerable amount of people within the Labour party so I think you can agree that there’s no real risk to the disbanding of NATO. Even if there were a considerable amount of people the other members wouldn’t just listen to the UK and shut up shop. The biggest threat to NATO are in fact right wing lunatics like Trump and Johnson. I say that to you as a person with first hand experience with the alliance. Regarding Salisbury are you criticising him for wanting due process and international law be followed? We believe in innocence until proven guilty in this country, it’s a slippery slope once you decide to do away with it because the point of where you draw the line will forever be moving.
- The Royal Mail was gifted away. There should probably be an inquiry to see who profited the most from it as it’s likely to turn out to be some Conservative crony. While they’re at it they should check the contracts Grayling signed too as he has just decided to ride into the sunset now competing in a disappearing act with Lord Lucan himself, JRM! On the subject of Thomas Cook we have discussed it before and I did point out that the Germans saved Condor with no ill effects thus far. Who knows what would have happened?
- It’s not an immediate 10% so your concerns are unfounded - it’s 1% a year over 10 years. It may well create a positive effect because with workers having a stake in the company it would be in their interest for the company to succeed.
- The Waspi women offer is clearly a shameless vote winning tactic after Boris struggled on the issue. Having said that they were shafted by the government and as someone who believes in social justice you should accept that Labours offer to compensate them is the right thing even if it might not be fiscally responsible at this point in time. They may yet win their challenge and whoever will be in government will need to find that money.
This is the country we live in and these are the choices before us. The offer is Boris or Corbyn. The lesser of two evils is often the choice in politics and by that standard it’s not even a choice you should be contemplating in this particular case.
Anone else see all of Question Time this evening? The questions from the audience was mainly spent debating issues around NHS, manifesto funding claims, Islamaphobia/Ant- Semitism and Trust in politicians. BrExit did not come up as a question at all.
I think the most revealing bit came at the end. Fiona Bruce called time, and then fatso ToryBoy Brandon Lewis squealed "We didn't get much chance to talk about Brexit", followed by a mocking groan from the audience. He was very agitated he didn't get his chance to fire off a round of Brexit slogans, and I suspect will get a spanking from CCHQ for that.
BJ's sole election winning strategy is about 'Get Brexit done' and yet as we progress into the final weeks of campaigning, it seems Brexit is becoming a less important criteria for voters.
I think the most revealing bit came at the end. Fiona Bruce called time, and then fatso ToryBoy Brandon Lewis squealed "We didn't get much chance to talk about Brexit", followed by a mocking groan from the audience. He was very agitated he didn't get his chance to fire off a round of Brexit slogans, and I suspect will get a spanking from CCHQ for that.
BJ's sole election winning strategy is about 'Get Brexit done' and yet as we progress into the final weeks of campaigning, it seems Brexit is becoming a less important criteria for voters.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So we've got most of the world leaders in the UK, and the PM of this country won't be meeting with a single one what on earth is going on.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Also Astor was the second women MP, the first being Constance Markievicz.
Last edited:
It's about management and incentives.
I subbed out the cleaning services from my business around 5 years ago where it used to be in house. The first three providers we opted for were utterly awful. They were cheaper than our staff but the quality of service was completely sub par.
However with break clauses in the contract we moved away quickly and within 2 years found a company founded by a couple of Romanians who're fantastic.
In truth it took dozens of hours, a lot of effort and a lot of frustration but we're now in a position where we have far better service, far better timekeeping, far lower absenteeism and at a much lower cost (20% / £25k per annum).
The reason I persevered was that there was a personal carrot for me as he company owner. A portion of that £25k goes into my pocket. Had that not been the case I'd have either accepted mediocrity in terms of service or gone back to the expensive and inefficient in house cleaners.
I can't see any incentive for a manager of an NHS branch to go through this frustrating time sink, I certainly wouldn't. Especially when my turnover is exceptionally difficult to increase, whereas the NHS turnover is dictated by how loud the managers shout that they are underfunded. In fact I'd argue the incentive is to run the service in a mediocre fashion in order to have proof of the effects of a lack of funds... A well oiled machine is merely evidence that budget cuts are possible.
Luckily I also don't have the political pressures of my shareholders asking why 0.25% of my business has been sold off to the Romanians.
Edit: I agree absolutely with the poster a few pages back calling for a Royal Commission where everything is on the table and all parties agree that the outcome won't be politicised.
But I’m sorry that’s not good enough though is it? You’re basically saying “this wouldn’t work because the managers couldn’t be arsed”. What kind of argument is that when we extend that to the ideology of public vs private. The budget stuff is even worse.....”we can’t run efficiently because they’ll cut our budget”. You personally having to graft and work to get a function lean because you have a competitive market where you can’t increase turnover easily is a good example of capitalism working as it should.
What, you mean he's prepared to compromise? That's a good thing and something the wider labour movement is going to need to learn the hard way.
I don't, and I won't be voting for them either.
Your problem - in the sense that you are unelectable - is that when people take a dislike to Labour, Labour blames the media rather than themselves. It's tiresome. Learn took at yourselves as the voters see you, and fix that instead.
It is tiresome.
Painfully clear to see the issues within the Labour Party, and yet staunch supporters blame Rupert Murdock and the BBC for not portraying them fairly, instead of looking at the plethora of fundamental issues in the party - get a grip. This is the worst Tory government for a generation, and the reason Labour won’t win the GE lies with Corbyn, his leadership team and the unions that prop him up.
A moderate, progressive, middle ground opposition with clear policies would win this election.
It does seem to strange to remember the balirite / brownite struggle all those years ago and now they are all considered red tory blairite centrist scum
Labour, as it stood with Blair, would win by a landslide.
I look forward to the Lib Dems winning then.
Sorry but you're analysis is born of opinion first not fact. You've not even mentioned Brexit which is the number one issue why Labour have lost voters to the Tories. For Labour to get a majority with Scotland gone it requires such a huge increase in seats within England and Wales that no leader or platform is getting a Labour majority. Folly to think otherwise.
Alright, time for some multi-quote election madness...
On Salisbury, the government followed due process and international law by calling in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate. Corbyn called for samples of the chemical weapon to be sent to Russia, at its request - this would be a clear breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the UK is a signatory. It was Corbyn calling for international law to be violated.
This is a major problem with Corbyn - he seems incapable of weighing up the opportunity cost of his decisions. Spending on one pet project necessarily means less money to available for other causes. He's so fixated on his ideas of social justice, that he fails to see the bigger picture and make rational decisions.
I can assure you I disliked Corbyn and his merry band of entryists long before the media took any notice of him.
If inflation were to start shooting up due to a supply shock or excessive government spending and the BoE needed to hike interest rates, I could well envisage a Corbyn government putting political pressure on the central bank to prevent them doing their thing. That would obviously be the end of the UK as an advanced democracy.
Corbyn has explicitly called for the breakup of NATO on many occasions - I don't want someone like that as leader of my country. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take.
On Salisbury, the government followed due process and international law by calling in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate. Corbyn called for samples of the chemical weapon to be sent to Russia, at its request - this would be a clear breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the UK is a signatory. It was Corbyn calling for international law to be violated.
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Royal Mail's share price is less than half it was when the government sold the shares in 2013, and the lowest it has ever been. The government clearly sold at the right time and got good value for the company.
It will be a disaster. We live in an age of mobile capital and countries competing to attract investment and company headquarters. Forced expropriation of private shares by the state will decimate Britain's reputation as a business leader.
It's not the right thing to do. If the government has £58Bn going spare to be given away, there are MUCH more deserving ways of spending that money.
This is a major problem with Corbyn - he seems incapable of weighing up the opportunity cost of his decisions. Spending on one pet project necessarily means less money to available for other causes. He's so fixated on his ideas of social justice, that he fails to see the bigger picture and make rational decisions.
I guess we hope for a hung parliament and for both to be skewered by their parties for being the crap political leaders they are.
what facts am I meant to present when I am expressing my opinion?
the Lib Dems have gone for a land grab with their “stop Brexit” policy, which whilst at least clear is futile at best. Interesting that Labour initially saw the Lib Dems as a threat, but found it to be very overstated.
It is pretty clear when I said a Labour Party with clear policies would win this GE, that this refers to Brexit. Their Brexit policy is laughable and is indicative of the complete lack of leadership shown under Corbyn. A cohesive, decisive strategy would obviously have been a better policy and is just another reason why the Labour Party is not a credible option. When Corbyn is finally put out of his misery we can look forward to a competitive opposition.
And probably with 1997 type results
the only real question for the current labour party is do they want to accept that to get back into power they have to move back to the center or would they rather stay as they are... both choices are valid but the PLP and Momentum would probably have different takes on that and it will be key to see where the remaining membership is
i can see three outcomes:
1. The party splits ... possibly with a chunk of PLP members moving over to the libs or a tom watson lead new centre ground party forming if the next leader is a pidcock / wrong daily / burgon momentum mouthpiece
2. The party moves slowly back to the center but this will take years possibly of internal struggle (think kinnock years - infact perhaps stephen kinnock could even be an option to lead that battle?)
3. The party carries on in its current direction and gradually through continual trigger ballots they manage to move to a core of MPs in line with the mommentm agenda
At a time of economic prosperity, Practically a decade of growth, he ran up a steady deficit and significantly increased national debt. He didn’t put anything away, which is what he should of done - save for a rainy day. Then the crash came, which left us knackered
Blairites are just as vehemently Europhilic as the Lib Dems are, so their main campaign focus would also likely revolve around stopping Brexit.
I still don’t see how they’d “wipe the floor” with the Tories too. Most younger and progressive voters would have been put off by their unfortunate foreign policy and flirtation with authoritarian measures like the notorious ID card idea, and would probably just opt for the Lib Dems or third parties, and the Tories could directly hold them culpable for financial and spending woes as it was their ilk in the government that preceded them.
I know we love a bit of alternative history scenarios but let’s not pretend that Tony feckin Blair would spearhead the Labour party to a majority today.
I think you're missing the key element in that Blair would adapt policies to the current climate. It isn't a case of transplanting his policies from 1997 to now, it's about appreciating his skill as a communicator and strategist. The key thing was that he surrounded himself with talented people and was able to win over Murdoch and the media. When it comes to presentation of arguments and ideas he was on a completely different level of ability to the likes of Boris and Corbyn. I don't think he'd be caught behind the use of modern technology and social media either.
Iraq AGAIN? All roads lead to Iraq for you lot... when it's not the media. (By the way Iraq would have happened whether Labour "led" it or not, as you well know). It is possible to have a moderate, broad-appeal Labour party which doesn't also want to conquer the middle east, you know. One thing does not make the other inevitable.
Blair, no. Someone with Blair's abilities would walk it though.
Well put - I’m not saying the Blair from 97 would be the answer in 2019 anymore than Churchill would be the answer today...
@Kaos - can you not see that the labour leadership is a serious issue and barrier to challenging for power? Or do you prefer to blame the media/ the Tories/ the weather?
you spectacularly miss my point. The Lib Dems don’t believe in stopping Brexit, they saw a political gap and have tried to exploit it. It’s not about what Blair’s policy on Brexit may have been - he would have had a policy and direction, not an ambiguous, lack of clarity proposal that the current labour incumbents have presents, which has lost votes.
Unfortunately for you a hard left party is not going to get into power, I don’t understand why you can’t see that? If labour is to win it needs to gain the middle ground - Blair did exactly this, Corbyn has failed as a leader. He has his beliefs, but there’s little point if he can’t actually get into power. Time for a change, or it’s more failure for Labour.
The issue is it’s global neoliberal politics spearheaded by the likes of Blair or rather the backlash to it that’s ultimately led to the current climate, and further steered people towards the left or right. Campaigning to bring it back is hardly going to galvanise a large number of people.
He’d definitely handle himself better than Corbyn, but has a poisoned reputation and considered every bit as dishonest as Johnson is. The only chance he’d have is if the Murdoch media decide to favour him over the Tories again, but we know they’re all raving euroskeptics so that took would be unlikely.
I think you’re also underrating this current Labour party’s grip on social media, they’re amongst the most impressively mobilised political outfits on the web and social media.
I think blaming the media / tories / weather etc is secondary
Most Corbyn fans simply want to blame bLair, and us balirite centrist red tory scum.
I think Labour members love Jezza because he validates their view of the world and makes them feel good about themselves. They currently prefer this to winning. At the moment, they can get away with this self indulgence. After the election is lost, and he steps down, they will have to decide whether they want to get serious about power, or want more feel-good.
Last edited:
I think your overestimating the ability of social media to break out from its own echo chambers / bubbles
I suspect my social media feeds and yours would paint pretty different pictures of Corbyn for example
I’m not pinning the blame solely on the media, but they aren’t exactly providing an impartial arena either.
If Labour loses Corbyn should go, I completely agree. I just don’t see how desperately trying to revert back to neoliberal Labour politics is going to be the antidote to Labour’s woes. Corbyn’s predecessor was hardly a radical opponent of the centre ground yet he wasn’t spared a gruelling treatment by the media and was beaten convincingly in an election.
What exactly do you think Blair’s political direction would be today that would be so effective that it would turn the tide away from populist politics?
And the fact you consider the current Labour Party as “hard left” is unfortunately an indication as to how much to the right the country has shifted. By that token many European democracies are Marxist enclaves.
I’d argue social media played a significant role in encouraging millions of young voters to register in unprecedented numbers. It’s acted as an increasingly effective buffer to the ever waning outreach of mainstream media.
Just look at Trump’s election victory, it’s a more unfortunate success story but you can’t downplay the effect it had.
Thatch and Raygun were the spearheads of Neoliberalism.
Johnson on LBC was a disaster:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...el-4-after-climate-debate-ice-stunt-live-news
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...el-4-after-climate-debate-ice-stunt-live-news
- Status