The Politics Thread

[Webbo]

21 minutes ago, Barky said:

The first issue is valid when comparing against 'new money' countries who have built entire networks almost from scratch with modern technology, but it's not valid for comparing against the likes of France and Germany who have just as much old infrastructure to work with and around as we do.

 

The second issue should be solved by strong regulation. Again I'm pretty sure Germany at least has a very similar hybrid public/private financing model to ours. Network rail is also wholly owned by the government so track maintenance is basically nationalised.

 

For me it comes down to the government taking money from tax payers and not reinvesting anywhere near enough of it back into the networks. It's the same story on the roads and the government's excuse for that is that they prefer other forms of transport. Then when you look at other forms of transport you see they're not investing there either. Where does all the money go? 

The country is running a budget deficit, if it's not being spent on transport it's being spent on something else the electorate want.

[Barky]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The country is running a budget deficit, if it's not being spent on transport it's being spent on something else the electorate want.

Not a penny of it is wasted?

 

The question remains about how other countries who have just as many financial constraints as us seem to do so much better. The government scratch their heads over why productivity in the uk is so much lower than everywhere else, probably because we're all sat in traffic jams and on trains that never move while all the money goes 'somewhere else'

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Barky said:

Not a penny of it is wasted?

 

The question remains about how other countries who have just as many financial constraints as us seem to do so much better. The government scratch their heads over why productivity in the uk is so much lower than everywhere else, probably because we're all sat in traffic jams and on trains that never move while all the money goes 'somewhere else'

A huge proportion of all govt spending is wasted. It's not like the govt is deliberately starving the railways of money.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

I've met very few Italians who'd like to leave the EU despite sharing many concerns with British people.

 

But that's anecdotal evidence and people tend to spend time and converse with those who share their point of view.

Sadly this is true, often when expressing opinion people nod along even if in disagreement. I do it all the time, in my head I'm just calling them wankers all through it.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Sadly this is true, often when expressing opinion people nod along even if in disagreement. I do it all the time, in my head I'm just calling them wankers all through it.

You're right mate.

[Guest MattP]

Lates Yougov poll puts Labour on 24% - a 33 year low - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/upts71m2pt/TimesResults_161219_VI_Trackers_EndofYear_W.pdf

 

I have to say I'm a bit baffled by this and how it can still keep going down, if you are still going to vote for Jeremy Corbyn after what he has shown over the last 18 months, surely there is absolutely nothing he can possible now do for you to lose his vote?

 

Question for the Corbyn supporters on here, did you prefer it when the media attacked him every day like they were at the start, or prefer it now where they just ignore him as he becomes irrelevent?

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Lates Yougov poll puts Labour on 24% - a 33 year low - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/upts71m2pt/TimesResults_161219_VI_Trackers_EndofYear_W.pdf

 

I have to say I'm a bit baffled by this and how it can still keep going down, if you are still going to vote for Jeremy Corbyn after what he has shown over the last 18 months, surely there is absolutely nothing he can possible now do for you to lose his vote?

 

Question for the Corbyn supporters on here, did you prefer it when the media attacked him every day like they were at the start, or prefer it now where they just ignore him as he becomes irrelevent?

 

Think you answer your own question with the last paragraph really.

 

I would imagine the voters that are drifting away are those that might have stuck with him when he was under fire, might have liked his politics, but are underwhelmed by his lack of presence now that he's becoming an irrelevance.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Lates Yougov poll puts Labour on 24% - a 33 year low - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/upts71m2pt/TimesResults_161219_VI_Trackers_EndofYear_W.pdf

 

I have to say I'm a bit baffled by this and how it can still keep going down, if you are still going to vote for Jeremy Corbyn after what he has shown over the last 18 months, surely there is absolutely nothing he can possible now do for you to lose his vote?

 

Question for the Corbyn supporters on here, did you prefer it when the media attacked him every day like they were at the start, or prefer it now where they just ignore him as he becomes irrelevent?

 

I'm no Corbynista, but am nominally a Labour supporter - and I find the irrelevance much worse.

 

It's now 16 months since he was elected and 4 months since he was re-elected. Yet I have little idea what his core strategy or key policies are.

But then, extraordinarily, it seems that his Deputy has no idea either - and no idea who is drawing party strategy up: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/04/jeremy-corbyn-doesnt-consult-me-on-strategy-decisions-says-watson 

 

The party has about 500k to 600k members. In theory, that's a massive resource that could be deployed in support of a strategy. At the time of the leadership election, they were very active sending hostile memes to evil "Blairites" on Facebook but seem to have gone quiet now. Where are they? Are they all busy on doorsteps in Nuneaton and Basildon, promoting a strategy I've not heard of? I doubt it. It really does seem as if gaining control of the Labour Party was the end - not a means to the end of gaining the power to change the nation.

 

What little I know of Corbyn's current policies seems fuzzy, disconnected and unappealing. He's sort of on the fence about Brexit but will oppose the Tories if they try to dilute employment conditions. He's opposing Tory austerity but without much vigour and without promoting a meaningful alternative, as far as I can tell. He's opposing the hike in commuter fares (are a lot of SE commuters really going to switch to Corbyn - is that a good strategic priority?). He's made a stand on the nuclear issue - but hasn't followed it up with any sort of campaign to win hearts and minds to back the non-replacement of Trident, and is sort-of-opposing nuclear power just before a byelection in the Copeland (Sellafield) constituency..... Maybe it is better, after all, that the media is now ignoring what he's doing! 

 

Interesting article here, though, suggesting that Labour might hold Copeland at the byelection due to a local bust-up over a hospital closure: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/23/who-will-win-the-copeland-byelection

Part of me hopes that Labour gets thrashed in that byelection so as to wake them up before it's too late (if it isn't already).

 

It's not as if the Tories are in a strong position. They have a tiny minority and are divided, there are major concerns over the economy / living standards. If things get worse economically and the Brexit negotiations do not look promising (the likely scenario) the honeymoon will be over for the Tories. A lot of people are already very pissed off - and are only likely to become more so. Yet where are they going to turn? At the moment, it looks like a great opportunity for a resurgence by UKIP if they can tap into hostility towards "the elite" and low real incomes and frustration over lack of progress with Brexit. The Lib Dems stand to benefit in liberal-minded, Remain-voting areas, among those who aren't doing so badly. I can't see how Labour stands to gain - yet they could be doing so. Even with Corbynite policies they could do so: vigorous campaigns for better public services, affordable housing, more security of employment, more funds for low-pay areas with high immigration, more apprenticeships, even something as left-field as calling for the billions earmarked to replace Trident to be reallocated to social care for the elderly & smaller class sizes. Instead, we seem to get a silent vacuum plus the occasional platitudinous, right-on statement. 

 

Even Tories should be concerned at the state of Labour under Corbyn. This is probably the most crucial political period in living memory - and our democracy needs a strong, credible opposition challenging the government where appropriate and presenting alternatives. A worrying state of affairs.

[Guest MattP]

Good post, enjoyed that.

 

I can't really understand why they don't have any policy yet, it's been long enough now and we are told by John McDonnell that the party is on a General Election footing? It clearly isn't true.

 

The bookmakers have Copeland neck and neck, I think Labour might just hold on as I still find it impossible for a government to win a by-election off the opposition (not happened in my lifetime!) - if he does lose it he should do the honourable thing and step down, no one would be able to put a serious argument across that they would be heading for anything but a massacre at the next election whatever happens.

 

We talk about the Tories not being in a strong position but in reality they are whilst he is there, I tested myself over Xmas to write down a list of scenarios where Corbyn could be elected, I couldn't do it, even with a drop of living standards, mass unemployment, Brexit being a total shambles - it still wouldn't send any centre ground voter into the arms of Corbyn,I think a lot would rather just hope the Tories can sort it out than seriously put any faith in him to do so, he's already lost, he just refuses to realise it or he doesn't even care as the real issue was turning the Labour party into what HE wants it to be rather that an option for the country to vote for as a potential government.

 

It occured to me on NYD just how irrelevant he has become, I read the MoS and the Sunday Times and I don't think there was a single mention of him, that's two papers that are pretty much 80% politics on that day of the week as well and no mention of the opposition leader all while Farron, Farage and Sturgeon rack up column inches.

[Alf Bentley]

On 1/5/2017 at 10:49, MattP said:

 

The bookmakers have Copeland neck and neck, I think Labour might just hold on as I still find it impossible for a government to win a by-election off the opposition (not happened in my lifetime!) - if he does lose it he should do the honourable thing and step down, no one would be able to put a serious argument across that they would be heading for anything but a massacre at the next election whatever happens.

 

 

Article here on potential Labour candidates for Copeland: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/01/who-will-be-labour-party-candidate-copeland-election

 

The "Cumbrian Woman of the Year" who set up a homeless charity and whose husband is a policeman at Sellafield sounds a good option, though I've no idea about her personal qualities or political views. Another article stated that she'd been involved in helping ex-servicemen and running homeless football teams, having been homeless herself as a teenager, so not yer usual greasy-pole-climbing political adviser on the conveyor belt from Oxbridge to Westminster.

 

I can't imagine Ed Balls wanting a seat up there, when parliament is in London, he comes from Norwich and his wife's seat (and family life, I presume) is based in West Yorks. Would be intriguing if he did stand. A year ago, he'd have been a guaranteed loser as a carpetbagger with an unappealing personality, but Strictly has probably changed all that. Funny old world!

[Guest MattP]

57 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Article here on potential Labour candidates for Copeland: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/01/who-will-be-labour-party-candidate-copeland-election

 

The "Cumbrian Woman of the Year" who set up a homeless charity and whose husband is a policeman at Sellafield sounds a good option, though I've no idea about her personal qualities or political views. Another article stated that she'd been involved in helping ex-servicemen and running homeless football teams, having been homeless herself as a teenager, so not yer usual greasy-pole-climbing political adviser on the conveyor belt from Oxbridge to Westminster.

 

I can't imagine Ed Balls wanting a seat up there, when parliament is in London, he comes from Norwich and his wife's seat (and family life, I presume) is based in West Yorks. Would be intriguing if he did stand. A year ago, he'd have been a guaranteed loser as a carpetbagger with an unappealing personality, but Strictly has probably changed all that. Funny old world!

She does sound like the best on that page, I'm not sure if Ed Balls would return to politics anyway, I got the feeling watching him on This Week that he might just feel a career in TV and Radio might just be a better call now like the guy who sits next to him, a lot more money, makes you far more likable and you don't have to deal with the game of politics. Not to mention Balls economics now are probably far closer to the Conservative party policy than they are to the Labour party.

 

If Labour pick anyone who supported remain though I'd back them to lose the seat, it's just to much of the issue of the day at the minute. It could even come down to who can avoid losing most of their vote, i.e Tories to UKIP or Labour to the Lib Dems.

[Guest MattP]

By this time next year he might even be trailing among Labour members

 

[Guest MattP]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12136316/Sadiq-Khan-Zero-days-of-public-transport-strikes-if-I-am-elected-Mayor.html

 

That went well....

 

 

Quote

 

Sadiq Khan, Labour's candidate for mayor of London, has pledged to ensure there are "zero strikes" on public transport if he is elected in May.

Mr Khan said that the 35 days of strikes during Boris Johnson's tenure as mayor were a "disgrace" and that any strike was a failure of government.

Members of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) Union hold a picket line outside the entrance to the London Underground at King's Cross station  Photo: OLI SCARFF/GETTY IMAGES

Challenged on Boris Johnson's accusation that Mr Khan should "man up" and condemn this week's cancelled strike action, he replied that there had been an unacceptable number of strikes under the mayor's watch.

Speaking at West Thames College in Isleworth, the Labour MP said: "Strikes are ultimately a sign of failure. Every day there's a strike it caused huge misery and inconvenience to Londoners."

He added that there had been 16 days of strikes when Ken Livingstone had held the position.

"As mayor what I'd do is roll up my sleeves and make sure that I'm talking to everyone who runs public transport to make sure there are zero days of strikes. 16 was too many and 35 is a disgrace," he said.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

19 hours ago, MattP said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12136316/Sadiq-Khan-Zero-days-of-public-transport-strikes-if-I-am-elected-Mayor.html

 

That went well....

 

 

 

 

It was a silly promise for Khan to make. If he'd promised to aim for zero strikes and to guarantee to halve strikes under Boris, he might have had a chance.

 

Still, could be worse. At least he didn't promise to pay off the deficit by 2015 ("er, I mean 2020, er, er"), to bring net immigration below 100,000, to cap care payments for the elderly at £72,000, to build a "big society" and to win an EU referendum, as Cameron and May did. Neither did he promise to give an extra £350 per week to the NHS or to help Turkey join the EU, "er, I mean avoid that disaster, er, I mean help it join", as Boris did.

 

Meanwhile.....signs of a strategy from the Corbynistas?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-copy-donald-trump-labour-leader-new-strategy-aggressive-populist-poll-ratings-a7517351.html

I'm not convinced either that it's a workable strategy or that he's the right man to make a success of it, but at least they're starting to realise they have a problem and need to find a solution.... 

 

"Jeremy Corbyn is to attempt to copy Donald Trump as he aims to get his leadership of the Labour Party back on track.The left-winger’s advisers have adopted a new strategy that includes many of the tactics used by the US President-elect, including attacks on the media and intentionally drawing attention to negative stories. [...] During the US presidential election campaign, Mr Trump frequently highlighted attacks on him by mainstream media outlets, such as CNN and The New York Times, as evidence of him taking on the establishment – a tactic Mr Corbyn is expected to adopt. [...] Labour also plans to use Trump-style rallies to get its message across and secure media coverage. Mr Corbyn’s previous rallies have frequently attracted thousands of supporters but were dismissed by opponents as preaching to the converted and having little impact on the wider electorate.As part of a potential speaking tour, Mr Corbyn’s team want to use promises of infrastructure investment to win over voters across the country. Mr Trump’s pledges of new spending in various US states helped convince swing voters in key states, and Labour hopes its promise of a £500bn investment boost will be similarly successful".

[Barky]

If he promises a £500bn investment boost in a reasonable time scale and actually means it then I'll be voting labour for the first time in my life. 

[Innovindil]

21 minutes ago, Barky said:

If he promises a £500bn investment boost in a reasonable time scale and actually means it then I'll be voting labour for the first time in my life. 

Might want to ask him where he's getting the money from first, and where this £500bn would be spent. 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, Barky said:

If he promises a £500bn investment boost in a reasonable time scale and actually means it then I'll be voting labour for the first time in my life. 

 

 

I'd certainly support an investment boost - and wouldn't be against some of the cash coming from borrowing, provided the investment paid off economically and didn't just add to the debt burden.

£500bn seems an awful lot, though (equates to increasing national debt by 30%+). As I understand it, the cash would be borrowed as interest rates are low. If that creates medium-term growth and employment, that's great. Otherwise, it could be a big risk if interest rates start to rise and the budget is hampered by high interest repayments. It doesn't sound as if interest rates will rise soon but it could easily happen within a couple of years.

 

I'd want to see some expert opinion about potential impact on inflation and currency rates, too. If Labour is going to make this proposal, they'll need some bloody convincing expert support, economic arguments and campaigning, as the Tories and the media are bound to lambast such proposals as reckless and economically unrealistic.

[SMX11]

Ludicrous stuff from Corbyn. It is a shame that we have no opposition to this dire Conservative government.

[Alf Bentley]

Some signs that Corbyn is starting to think through a strategy on Brexit and freedom of movement here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38561501

 

"Britain must not become a "bargain basement economy" after Brexit, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said. He told the BBC high-skilled jobs and trade must be protected outside the EU.

Mr Corbyn was asked about his stance on immigration ahead of a speech in which he is to say he is "not wedded" to free movement as a matter of principle.

Asked what this meant, he said EU migrants should be able to continue to travel to the UK, but the right to work would be part of Brexit negotiations.

The focus, he said, should be on ending the exploitation of low-skilled workers and more local recruitment - which he said would reduce overall numbers".

 

I'm still not sure it's enough, but given the Labour policy/strategy vacuum until now, it's good just to see some thinking going on!

[Barky]

21 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Might want to ask him where he's getting the money from first, and where this £500bn would be spent. 

It would be borrowed.

 

I supported the tories cost cutting programme but you can only cut corners for so long before it becomes a false economy. We should have been borrowing to invest at practically zero finance costs for the last few years really. We missed a bit of an opportunity there. But it's not too late and a big spending programme over the next decade is exactly what we need to a) catch our infrastructure up with our competitors and b) give the economy a boost while brexit uncertainty lingers. If there's ever a time to borrow to invest it's now. The return on the investment should easily cover the finance costs.

[Innovindil]

47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Some signs that Corbyn is starting to think through a strategy on Brexit and freedom of movement here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38561501

 

"Britain must not become a "bargain basement economy" after Brexit, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said. He told the BBC high-skilled jobs and trade must be protected outside the EU.

Mr Corbyn was asked about his stance on immigration ahead of a speech in which he is to say he is "not wedded" to free movement as a matter of principle.

Asked what this meant, he said EU migrants should be able to continue to travel to the UK, but the right to work would be part of Brexit negotiations.

The focus, he said, should be on ending the exploitation of low-skilled workers and more local recruitment - which he said would reduce overall numbers".

 

I'm still not sure it's enough, but given the Labour policy/strategy vacuum until now, it's good just to see some thinking going on!

Might need more thinking if he's under the delusion the EU would sign off on us allowing Europeans to come here to holiday and spend their money but not be able to work here 

 

46 minutes ago, Barky said:

It would be borrowed.

 

I supported the tories cost cutting programme but you can only cut corners for so long before it becomes a false economy. We should have been borrowing to invest at practically zero finance costs for the last few years really. We missed a bit of an opportunity there. But it's not too late and a big spending programme over the next decade is exactly what we need to a) catch our infrastructure up with our competitors and b) give the economy a boost while brexit uncertainty lingers. If there's ever a time to borrow to invest it's now. The return on the investment should easily cover the finance costs.

 

Again, what would corbyn be investing in exactly? 

 

I think it seems pretty mad to be worried the sky is falling and the economy will crash yet want to slam us with another £500bn worth of debt for the labour gang to waste frivolously (again). 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Might need more thinking if he's under the delusion the EU would sign off on us allowing Europeans to come here to holiday and spend their money but not be able to work here 

 

He's not proposing that NO Europeans would be allowed to take up jobs here, just that the employment of EU citizens arriving in the UK would be an issue for the Brexit negotiations. In theory, we could negotiate for some EU citizens to be able to work here, but others not (e.g. only if they already have a job arranged or will be filling vacancies that can't be filled locally) - and we could negotiate partial single market access in exchange for that. 

 

It may be the case that the EU will not be prepared to make any concessions on the right of EU citizens to work in the UK, but we won't know that until the negotiations take place.

Given widespread concern over immigration, Corbyn's in a better place vis-a-vis the electorate arguing that the employment of EU citizens should be up for negotiation, rather than arguing for complete freedom of movement.

It would also leave him in a better position to challenge any unpopular compromises that May has to make.

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

He's not proposing that NO Europeans would be allowed to take up jobs here, just that the employment of EU citizens arriving in the UK would be an issue for the Brexit negotiations. In theory, we could negotiate for some EU citizens to be able to work here, but others not (e.g. only if they already have a job arranged or will be filling vacancies that can't be filled locally) - and we could negotiate partial single market access in exchange for that. 

 

It may be the case that the EU will not be prepared to make any concessions on the right of EU citizens to work in the UK, but we won't know that until the negotiations take place.

Given widespread concern over immigration, Corbyn's in a better place vis-a-vis the electorate arguing that the employment of EU citizens should be up for negotiation, rather than arguing for complete freedom of movement.

It would also leave him in a better position to challenge any unpopular compromises that May has to make.

"but we won't know that until the negotiations take place."

 

So corbyn has stopped being the opposition and started being the parrot. Even though he's expressed multiple times his whole UK plan is along the lines of "we'll borrow money and pay for it through immigration" 

 

That quote is exactly what May has been saying all along, she wants control of movement and to be outside eu courts but doesn't yet know what access to the single market would be available, yet she's been getting grilled for not having a complete rock solid idea of what we will get. 

 

Why is it good enough for corbyn but not for may? 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Barky said:

If he promises a £500bn investment boost in a reasonable time scale and actually means it then I'll be voting labour for the first time in my life. 

Wouldn't you actually want to know where it's coming from and what he'll spend it on?

 

If bond yields are going to accelerate at the level some economists (there they are again ) have predicted because of the protectionist program of the Trump government the idea of us borrowing 500 billion in 2020 is pure fantasy. The days of Labour winning elections on promising to spend borrowed money died with Gordon Brown.

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Some signs that Corbyn is starting to think through a strategy on Brexit and freedom of movement here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38561501

 

"Britain must not become a "bargain basement economy" after Brexit, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said. He told the BBC high-skilled jobs and trade must be protected outside the EU.

Mr Corbyn was asked about his stance on immigration ahead of a speech in which he is to say he is "not wedded" to free movement as a matter of principle.

Asked what this meant, he said EU migrants should be able to continue to travel to the UK, but the right to work would be part of Brexit negotiations.

The focus, he said, should be on ending the exploitation of low-skilled workers and more local recruitment - which he said would reduce overall numbers".

 

I'm still not sure it's enough, but given the Labour policy/strategy vacuum until now, it's good just to see some thinking going on!

At least there is some thinking going on, but the relaunch has barely made it past breakfast without him backtracking, but no clarity on anything. First off it's all "proposals" again, nothing concrete and I still don't actually know what his position is, he did two interviews om GMB and Sky and still left me non the wiser whether he supported immigration controls or would prioritise being a member of the single market over it, Corbyn's position seems to be that is Labour isn't wedded to free movement in principle, but he's wedded to it in practice.

Put it this way, he doesn't appear to be in much of a position to tell Theresa May she hasn't got a plan, his is all nothing more than guesswork.

 

He's going to have to quickly explain the policy detail of this potential wage cap as well, otherwise he's going to get torn to bits. All we have found out so far is it will be a more than his own wage, but yet again, no clarity or idea of what is actually will be, he's just making it up as he goes along.

 

[Guest MattP]

2015 - Straight and Honest politics

2016 - Vanish

2017 - Turn into Donald Trump