General Election, June 8th

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, theessexfox said:

On foreign aid, I like the idea in principle, and I'm glad the commitment is being adhered to. Are there practical reasons why it's a bad idea, ie that the money is mismanaged or detrimental to those it goes to, or is it just opposed by those who wish to prioritise domestic spending? 

The idea of a set amount is a bad idea imo. Say you have £9 billion to spend but can only find £8 billion's worth of worthwhile projects you have to go looking for things to spend the money on. Might not be a very good project, you might think that most of the money will be siphoned off to a corrupt govt but you have to spend the money to meet your target.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

It's basically a non-issue really every country does it. It just another way for barmy UKIP knuckledraggers to rage against brown people.

Pretty sure that's not true. It's a UN target but I don't think many countries meet it. 

[theessexfox]

Just now, Webbo said:

The idea of a set amount is a bad idea imo. Say you have £9 billion to spend but can only find £8 billion's worth of worthwhile projects you have to go looking for things to spend the money on. Might not be a very good project, you might think that most of the money will be siphoned off to a corrupt govt but you have to spend the money to meet your target.

But then arguably if budgets for things like foreign aid aren't ringfenced, then any time money is short, they will be the types of policies which are quietly scrapped, as they don't tend to be the big headline grabbers which win elections. Is there not a case to say that protecting spending areas important but more low-key/off the radar gives it protection from political maouevring? 

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Pretty sure that's not true. It's a UN target but I don't think many countries meet it. 

Yeah i know i made it up but who's got time to get facts not me thats for sure.

[Guest]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yeah i know i made it up but who's got time to get facts not me thats for sure.

Or 52% of the country 

[Webbo]

 

[Thracian]

28 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Conveniently missed this Sky story then

 

http://news.sky.com/story/retail-sales-plunge-blamed-on-widespread-price-rises-10844749

 

Anyway, the dropping retail sales will include those online figures. So there's an overall drop across the board, but within that we have increased our online spending, but obviously it's drop significantly in other areas that gives an overall drop. I'd say the BBC reported it pretty well, whilst Sky showed it as two separate stories, making the online part seem more relevant than it actually is given spending overall is dropping.

 

I rarely read and therefore don't often quote Sky as I'm sure you're quite aware.

My point is that the BBC have flagged up a negative headline from an agency story about falling retail sales without seeking to marry up the seemingly separate but connected story about rising online sales and the huge amounts people seem to be spending in that area.

Thus there is negative headlining without any kind of genuine analysis that might actually reflect an inevitable change in shoppers habits and the increasing trend away from footslog shopping.

And are you sure the retail sales figures are inclusive of online figures?.

If so, it isn't made plain and needs to be because, otherwise I'd see no reason for separate stories just one connected story along the lines of retail sales (including online and on the streets) going down (if that's the case) but the proportion on online sales climbing dramatically, reflecting whatever conclusions....).

Then the story would be clear, better balanced and the most appropriate angle highlighted via the headline.

I'd also be asking why, if the reason for a downturn in footslog shopping is really down to price rises, why are online sales rising so dramatically?. 

Seems to me it might be that more and more people are becoming comfortable with online shopping and saving on incidental costs.

No, I'm not insisting that's right, just suggesting the the question (and others) might be asked and answered before resorting to what seems to be doom laden guesswork that doesn't seem convincing.     

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Surely a strong leader wouldn't get backstabbing from his own party?

 

Hitler?

[Sharpe's Fox]

12 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Hitler?

Ken we've talked about this.

[Facecloth]

25 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

I rarely read and therefore don't often quote Sky as I'm sure you're quite aware.

My point is that the BBC have flagged up a negative headline from an agency story about falling retail sales without seeking to marry up the seemingly separate but connected story about rising online sales and the huge amounts people seem to be spending in that area.

Thus there is negative headlining without any kind of genuine analysis that might actually reflect an inevitable change in shoppers habits and the increasing trend away from footslog shopping.

And are you sure the retail sales figures are inclusive of online figures?.

If so, it isn't made plain and needs to be because, otherwise I'd see no reason for separate stories just one connected story along the lines of retail sales (including online and on the streets) going down (if that's the case) but the proportion on online sales climbing dramatically, reflecting whatever conclusions....).

Then the story would be clear, better balanced and the most appropriate angle highlighted via the headline.

I'd also be asking why, if the reason for a downturn in footslog shopping is really down to price rises, why are online sales rising so dramatically?. 

Seems to me it might be that more and more people are becoming comfortable with online shopping and saving on incidental costs.

No, I'm not insisting that's right, just suggesting the the question (and others) might be asked and answered before resorting to what seems to be doom laden guesswork that doesn't seem convincing.     

Problem is that that sky story I posted is at the very top of the page where you found the one about the online sales. I found it after clicking on your link. So if as you say you don't really read sky much it would seem to me you've gone there to find this, avoided the negative story with a similar headline to the BBC, and posted the positive one to push your own agenda.

 

The online sales is actually a footnote to the story. The overall number has dropped, so the fact we've bought more online but less overall makes the online figure a bit of an irrelevance to the economy as a whole. The BBC reported this correctly by not ignoring the fact online businesses are increasing sales but also realising that that is happening whilst retail sales as a whole struggle. Sky on the other hand reported it completely separately in two articles and made no mention of online sales in the first article. That could be argued that they did this so they could put up a overly positive headline for a story not really worthy of such and to spin it as good news for the economy.

 

Oh and a quick google and a look on the Office of National Statistic website, where these figures come from, and who provided these figures to the news agencies tells you that online sales are part of the retail figures.

[Thracian]

12 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Problem is that that sky story I posted is at the very top of the page where you found the one about the online sales. I found it after clicking on your link. So if as you say you don't really read sky much it would seem to me you've gone there to find this, avoided the negative story with a similar headline to the BBC, and posted the positive one to push your own agenda.

 

The online sales is actually a footnote to the story. The overall number has dropped, so the fact we've bought more online but less overall makes the online figure a bit of an irrelevance to the economy as a whole. The BBC reported this correctly by not ignoring the fact online businesses are increasing sales but also realising that that is happening whilst retail sales as a whole struggle. Sky on the other hand reported it completely separately in two articles and made no mention of online sales in the first article. That could be argued that they did this so they could put up a overly positive headline for a story not really worthy of such and to spin it as good news for the economy.

 

Oh and a quick google and a look on the Office of National Statistic website, where these figures come from, and who provided these figures to the news agencies tells you that online sales are part of the retail figures.

I'd found and posted the BBC story before I saw the Sky story because BBC news is the least frustrating news source (as in less intrusive) and therefore the one I normally access. Your google concerning the National Statistic office doesn't change the fact that the BBC story should have made it clear that the retail and online sales were connected and that the reasoning behind the conclusion was highly questionable, and for more reasons than I've mentioned,  given the significant upturn in online sales.   

 

  

 

 

    

[Facecloth]

Just now, Thracian said:

I'd found and posted the BBC story before I saw the Sky story because BBC news is the least frustrating news source (as in less intrusive) and therefore the one I normally access. Your google concerning the National Statistic office doesn't change the fact that the BBC story should have made it clear that the retail and online sales were connected and that the reasoning behind the conclusion was highly questionable, and for more reasons than I've mentioned,  given the significant upturn in online sales.   

 

  

 

 

    

You clearly missed the point. In order to find the Sky story you posted, you must have ignored the Sky story I posted as mine was top of the page where yours was. So it's clear to me you've ignored Sky's negative headline, in order to pedal your belief that the BBC is biased, when in fact they've just posted a factual article, and sky have posted a similar one.

 

Also the BBC article clearly states the online figures and the increase in sales of clothing and footwear all come from the ONS report, so are obviously part of the same set of figures.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

As an outsider with nothing to lose or gain, im interested in what makes people vote the way they do?

 

obvoiusly many wont want to say which way they are going to vote, but if you are happy to share.

 

What a the three reasons you will vote for who you will .......and what are the three reasons you wont vote for the other major parties?

 

Some may claim policies are the biggest factor, but my hunch is it's actually a mixture of;

• Your background (class)
• The area you live
• Your family / friends political persuasion 
• Your level of education
• job type/class
• Your age
• Your gender

I imagine most people will go with gut feel when it comes to voting and will ultimately look for policies to justify their position, rather than look at the balance of policies and decide from their.

 

Voting is rather tribal, its about someone identifying with a person or group, so image is also a huge factor - which is why Corbyn is at a disadvantage because he's already been painted with a negative image across many people's mind.

 

Now it certainly seems he's on a mission to change people's opinions of him judging by the early days of this campaign, and IF (a big if) he is reasonably successful with that this could bring further focus on May and her 'untrustworthy' character that is beginning to build around her.

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, Thracian said:

I'd found and posted the BBC story before I saw the Sky story because BBC news is the least frustrating news source (as in less intrusive) and therefore the one I normally access. Your google concerning the National Statistic office doesn't change the fact that the BBC story should have made it clear that the retail and online sales were connected and that the reasoning behind the conclusion was highly questionable, and for more reasons than I've mentioned,  given the significant upturn in online sales.   

 

  

 

 

    

 

You do realise the two stories you've highlighted are bourne by two completely different sources?

 

BBC's story comes from the ONS data release and uses its headline overall figure.

 

Sky's story comes from the UK Cards Administration - hence why that is the headline - because it's not centred on overall retail sales. 

 

Your not comparing like for like!

[Realist Guy In The Room]

5 hours ago, Webbo said:

Surely a strong leader wouldn't get backstabbing from his own party?

I think history proves that to be incorrect.

 

To me it looked as if the party wanted change as it needed to rid itself of the Blair tag.  But when that change actually came, they shit themselves so they did what politicians always do which is scheme and plot thinking he'd **** off but he called their bluff.

 

Its a shame because quite a bit of what he has to say is much more palatable than anything May blurts out but we hardly get to hear it as he appears to be media blacklisted.

 

[Rincewind]

24 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

I think history proves that to be incorrect.

 

To me it looked as if the party wanted change as it needed to rid itself of the Blair tag.  But when that change actually came, they shit themselves so they did what politicians always do which is scheme and plot thinking he'd **** off but he called their bluff.

 

Its a shame because quite a bit of what he has to say is much more palatable than anything May blurts out but we hardly get to hear it as he appears to be media blacklisted.

 

Been saying this for a long time but most on here have only known Thatcher Blair et al. Rge media seems more focussed on the backstabbing withing the Labour party and how Corbyn dresses than the work he and his supporters do. Leicester South MP Jon Ashworth does a lot of work in the health and socal care issues but we hear little of it.

A while back JC attended a press conference to talk about the NHS and was repeatedly asked by reporters about the incident regarding Virgin trains. People say he is unelectable but he was elected leader by a big majority. Maybe MP's including some members of the Labour party fear for their cushy job status if he brought policies in regarding excessive expense claims.

[Foxxed]

This election is going to bite May on the arse. Even with the massive majority she is bound to achieve, especially looking at local election results for the last year.

 

She'll get loads of new Tory MPs. Fantastic. And she'll be able to use this MPs against the naughty ones in her own party.

 

But the thing is: she needs these new MPs because she can't persuade her existing MPs for the plans she's yet to tell them.

 

So these new young eager Tory MPs come on board. They've been supping on the Thatcherite soup of extreme self-interest since birth.

 

And their self-interest - like all MPs - says one thing: who shall I be loyal to in order to progress my own career?

 

Who do they align themselves with? The powerful Tory faction that has forced May to call a snap election while the going is good? Or the woman who can't persuade the MPs she already has?

[Foxxed]

Or she saw that prices are on the up, and retail spending is on the down, and thought she's get mandate now before the going gets rougher.

[Foxxed]

Oh, I've heard a third theory for the election, as claimed by Dennis Skinner: the Tory election fraud investigation will remove 40 MPs thereby obliterating her majority.

 

So there are three theories I've heard so far:

1. She needs fresh Tory MPs to fight the hard Brexit Tory MPs she can't convince
2. She knows that prices will continue to rise, and spending will continue to fall, and negotiations will turn sour
3. She knows the Tory election fraud will wipe out her existing majority

And there's hers... about needing a mandate she already claims she has, and needing to defeat an opposition she's already been defeating with ease so far.

[ozleicester]

10 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Hitler?

Ceaser?

[Col city fan]

My main concern is that I can't stand what the Tories are doing to the NHS.

That said, I just couldn't vote for Labour with Corbin as the leader. The thought of that putrid little man running the country...makes me shudder.

[Sharpe's Fox]

"Putrid" blimey

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

"Putrid" blimey

Yeah Col is going a it soft these days, he was calling him all-sorts which i dare not post

[Guest]

I work in the NHS. In fact, I've attended top level meetings with practically every NHS Trust in the midlands. The NHS is ****ed with the current government in charge.

 

I think it's a huge shame that Corbyn has views on terrorism and security which go against what voters believe. I think most of what is thrown at him comes down to that. His other policies (where he has talked about any) are broadly sensible and  I tend to take a left-ish view on most social issues so I'd happily support increasing the minimum wage, going after the elite (nobody can seriously believe the Tories will ever do that) etc. 

 

I also think Labour are right about spending more - this is supported by most of our political parties. George Osborne himself used to talk about the previous Labour government overspending during the god years when they should have been putting side the money to 'fix the roof whilst the sun is shining'. He had a point about how expenditure should work (whilst being hugely disingenuous about the fact the deficit had jumped due to the catastrophic fall in tax revenues at the point of the crash). What has somehow been missed, however, is that the sun isn't shining. It hasn't since 2008.

 

We should be spending MORE when in a period of economic difficulty as this puts money into the real economy - if the government builds a railway then ordinary companies and workers receive money which they spend. This would allow people to spend more and bring about increased growth. Then once we have grown our way out of economic difficulties, we can spend LESS than we are then bringing in to achieve balance. Instead, we have seen years of austerity mixed with a poor economy (and comparison with other weak western economies does not detract from the fact they are all weak as they have all gone for austerity to some degree) which has meant no real growth, wage stagnation and people now earning less (in real terms) than they were in 2008. Indeed, only London (and the South East marginally) is head of where it was in 2008 economically. The East Mids is well behind. 

 

I definitely won't be voting Tory, probably will vote Labour although I also wish the greens had more sensible social policies so that they could grow and influence energy discussions more. I think they shoot themselves in the foot by being far and away the best on energy and the environment (after Brexit having a  world leading clean energy sector could give us a huge boost) but coming up with wacky ultra left wing ideas elsewhere which won't win over the electorate.