General Election, June 8th

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Ed Miliband got 30.4%. Can't see JC beating Miliband.

 

I agree. 31% nationally would be surprising, but some of those regional figures looked even more bizarre.

Did even Blair get 30%+ in the East and SW or 25%+ in the SE outside London? Most seats in the E, SW & SE remained Tory even when Lab won a landslide.

 

I suppose there is a set of circumstances under which Labour could do a lot better than expected:

- Lower than expected turnout by older/Tory voters, maybe those expecting a landslide, not seeing the need for an election, or those who voted Remain

- UKIP voters stay at home rather than voting Tory (or a few more go back to Lab than expected)

- There is major economic bad news during the campaign

- May is wooden and unimpressive throughout the campaign & Boris makes an arse of himself

- Corbyn comes across much better than expected

- A very high number of young people register to vote, turn out and vote Labour (Lab definitely needs to make voter registration by the young a major tactic)

 

 Given the "stable leadership in the national interest" vibe & Corbyn's low ratings, Labour probably needs most, if not all of these things to happen.....just to achieve a defeat similar to last time

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So that's the polar opposite to labour then, who try and avoid mentioning their leaders name  

 

Yep. We got a leaflet from Jon Ashworth (Labour MP) yesterday: no photo/mention of Corbyn, as expected...and not even any mention of Brexit, which I found surprising and disappointing.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

There's a danger for the Tories that the people are going to stop following what the mainstream media say and actually look into party policies for themselves.

 

That wont be good for May.

 

 

 

It would be good if that happened, but unfortunately I really don't think it will.

 

Only a small proportion of the electorate ever look at party policies in any depth.

People like us in threads like this (regardless of opinion) are completely untypical of the electorate. Most people engage very superficially. 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It would be good if that happened, but unfortunately I really don't think it will.

 

Only a small proportion of the electorate ever look at party policies in any depth.

People like us in threads like this (regardless of opinion) are completely untypical of the electorate. Most people engage very superficially. 

Yes you're probably right.

 

[davieG]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It would be good if that happened, but unfortunately I really don't think it will.

 

Only a small proportion of the electorate ever look at party policies in any depth.

People like us in threads like this (regardless of opinion) are completely untypical of the electorate. Most people engage very superficially. 

 

Where only a very small proportion of the forum participate.

[Guest]

Unfortunately May will probably get away with doing no more than using two soundbites through the whole campaign without discussing a policy once. 

 

The question of policy is interesting though from a different perspective - it's often assumed that people would be more likely to vote to the left if they looked into party policies - it's why I tend to vote left also so I can see this rationale.  As this and the Brexit thread have shown, however, there are also significant numbers that are interested in politics that don't vote to the left - quite the opposite.

 

In the Brexit thread I asked an open question of leave voters regarding their hopes and what they would consider a disappointment. Not surprisingly, nobody answered it as I don't think either they're going to leave themselves open to criticism if their test wasn't met. With normal politics, however, the element of blame doesn't really exist in the same way so I'd invite answer to a different open question here:

 

As somebody who votes for left of centre policy, I don't understand why ordinary people vote for right of centre parties. This is probably because my focus is on the NHS, schools etc and a belief that it's worth spending more for public services and attempt to try to introduce more fairness into life.I'd be interested if anybody that is planning to vote Tory could tell me what it is that is their main concerns and why the Tories win on policy in that area. Genuinely interested to see what different views there are. 

 

I'm hoping that something other than immigration and security will be brought up as I don't see any prospect of us reducing immigration or getting into a serious war in the next parliament (unless Boris and May follow the US into something they shouldn't).

[Sharpe's Fox]

Just watched the Marr interview. Theresa May is an absolute disaster. She pretty much encompasses the worst of Toryism. The vacuousness, the authoritarian streak, the Anglican neo-fundamentalism, the lack of any compassion for people's circumstances. She says that work is the best route out of poverty, fair enough, but then goes on to brag about how many jobs she has created. Why are more people in food banks and homelessness then you dunce?

[Buce]

44 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

I'm less and less convinced by that argument.

 

Since the election was called, there's only one candidate who's looked strong, engaging, put forward inclusive policies and looked to connect with the electorate and it aint Theresa May.

 

The 'Corbyn is just some protest leader' rhetoric isn't washing with me anymore.  I've not heard him say anything in the last 6 months I could honestly disagree with.  There's a danger for the Tories that the people are going to stop following what the mainstream media say and actually look into party policies for themselves.

 

That wont be good for May.

 

 

 

I so wish I could believe that to be true, but the natural Labour voters (ie. the ones with most to gain from a left-leaning govt, and the most to lose from a Tory govt,) are pretty much disengaged from politics and form their opinions based on sound bites taken from the the popular press, which is just a Tory mouthpiece.

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Just watched the Marr interview. Theresa May is an absolute disaster. She pretty much encompasses the worst of Toryism. The vacuousness, the authoritarian streak, the Anglican neo-fundamentalism, the lack of any compassion for people's circumstances. She says that work is the best route out of poverty, fair enough, but then goes on to brag about how many jobs she has created. Why are more people in food banks and homelessness then you dunce?

 

No, I don't agree.

 

Well paid work is the best route out of poverty; it sickens me that the mantra always making work pay is achieved by lowering benefits, rather than raising wages to allow a dignified life. No one is raised out of poverty by a zero-hour contract paying £7.20 an hour, they are just relatively less poor than they would be on benefits.

[Sharpe's Fox]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

Well paid work is the best route out of poverty; it sickens me that the mantra always making work pay is achieved by lowering benefits, rather than raising wages to allow a dignified life. No one is raised out of poverty by a zero-hour contract paying £7.20 an hour, they are just relatively less poor than they would be on benefits.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make. Don't expect it from the Tories though who regard you as "the enemy within" if you have a skill and an opinion of how much it is worth.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

I'm less and less convinced by that argument.

 

Since the election was called, there's only one candidate who's looked strong, engaging, put forward inclusive policies and looked to connect with the electorate and it aint Theresa May.

 

The 'Corbyn is just some protest leader' rhetoric isn't washing with me anymore.  I've not heard him say anything in the last 6 months I could honestly disagree with.  There's a danger for the Tories that the people are going to stop following what the mainstream media say and actually look into party policies for themselves.

 

That wont be good for May.

But we know Corbyn isn't capable of doing the job, 80% of his MP''s who work with him day in and day out have already told us.

 

It hasn't even been a serious campaign so far from Labour, just a littany of bribes ranging from extra time off work to even now promising pensioners more cash than the Tories by guaranteeing the triple lock, somehow all paid for by a rise in corporation tax that appears to have been spent ten times over even using the most optimistic figures. 

 

Ten times today Andrew Neil asked for costings on a variety of policies to Ian Lavery and yet again not a single idea let alone coherent suggestion of how it was going to be funded. 

 

I'm looking forward to the manifesto, if Labour can genuinely cost all this that they are promising even I'll vote for them. But they know they can't, they may as well promise everyone a free house and car.

[Guest MattP]

One thing I will Labour credit for, they have hidden the idiots well so far.

 

Two weeks in and we've not seen much of Diane Abbott, Shami Chakrabati or Eddie Izzard.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

That was kind of the point I was trying to make. Don't expect it from the Tories though who regard you as "the enemy within" if you have a skill and an opinion of how much it is worth.

 

The whole Tory method of social control is sinister. Cutting university grants was all about denying education to the masses; they want the proles to have just enough to enable them to work, but not enough to enable them to think.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The whole Tory method of social control is sinister. Cutting university grants was all about denying education to the masses; they want the proles to have just enough to enable them to work, but not enough to enable them to think.

Verging into The Canary conspiracy theories here.

 

Lay off the spliffs for a bit.

[Guest]

What in this do people disagree with MattP and co?

 

This General Election campaign has been marked by the Prime Minister refusing to attend events with the public, declaring she will not take part in TV debates to defend the Tory record on the economy, and being elusive in terms of policy commitments on tax and the economy. In stark contrast to Theresa May, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of Labour’s team have been meeting the country and announcing a range of policies that can rebuild and transform Britain.

As part of this agenda for a better Britain today we have outlined a 20 point plan to transform the workplace, and ensure everyone secures security and dignity at work.

Such a bold programme to end the rigged economy in the workplace could not be more needed as we see a worrying trend of low pay and insecurity mushrooming in Tory Britain.

Six million people earn less than the living wage.

Four million children are growing up in poverty. The Tories promised to make work pay, but more children in working families are reliant on food banks than ever before.

And wages are now starting to fall behind prices, squeezing the living standards of millions.

But it’s not just about pay. Too many people are having their work-life balance undermined by rising workloads, and suffering stress due to punitive performance reviews.

Meanwhile, nearly a million people wake up on zero-hour contracts, not knowing what they will earn today, tomorrow or next week. The birth of the gig economy has taken more and more workers outside of formal employment regulations.

A lack of rights in the workplace -and an accompanying lack of enforcement and action for fairness and equality from Government - are central to these problems, with far too many people falling through gaps in the law.

There is a race to the bottom in pay, conditions and job security. This is sadly set to get worse if the Tories railroad through their reckless Tory Brexit agenda of tax cuts for the super-rich and a bonfire of the rights and public services for everyone else.

Workers in Britain currently have fewer protections than workers in most of the rest of Europe. At the very least, existing rights must be enshrined in primary legislation. As we leave the EU, people’s rights at work may also be strengthened by including them in future trade deals, but this alone will not be enough to change the rigged economy in the workplace.

If we are to ensure that Brexit does not lead us into a race to the bottom, we need to lead the way, not only in preserving existing protections but in advancing them, by ensuring that workplace rights and protections keep pace with changes in labour markets.

For too long, working people in Britain are seen their rights at work, and subsequently their living standards, sacrificed to the alter of austerity, but it hasn’t made them better off, far from it.

Things don’t need to be this way - it only takes a change of government to bring these outrages to an end and build an upgraded, balanced economy fit for the twenty first century.

Labour will strengthen rights at work, taking action to make sure new jobs are good jobs. Rather than a ‘bargain basement,’ tax-haven Britain as envisaged by the Tories, we will upgrade the economy through investment in good jobs and a strengthening of everyone’s rights to enforce a floor under employment standards across the board.

Our twenty pledges announced today will not only improve rights at work but help build a more equal, fairer and productive economy.

In terms of immediate action to improve living standards and boost the economy, we will end the public sector pay gap, raise the minimum wage to the level of the living wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) to give nearly six million people a pay rise, and double paid paternity leave to four weeks and increase paternity pay. We will roll out sectoral collective bargaining as the most effective way to improve working people’s pays and conditions.

In terms of your rights, safety, dignity and security at work, we will give all workers equal rights from day one, ban exploitative zero hour contracts to improve job security and strengthen protections for women against unfair redundancy.

We will repeal the draconian Trade Union Act and work productively with trade unions in the interests of working people and a fairer, productive economy.

Labour’s plan will not only extend the rights of working people, but ensure the enforcement of these rights too, including the abolition of employment tribunal fees so that people have access to justice. We will also introduce a civil enforcement system to ensure compliance with gender pay auditing.

Unlike the Tories, we will not shy away from using the government’s spending power to drive up standards, for example, awarding public contracts only to companies which recognise trade unions.

Labour will not only change the balance of power in society, it will also ensure fairness in your place of work - together, we can end the rigged economy and build a new Britain, many not just the few.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Verging into The Canary conspiracy theories here.

 

Lay off the spliffs for a bit.

 

I expected nothing different from you.

 

I certainly don't intend to defend my drug use to an alcoholic.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

But we know Corbyn isn't capable of doing the job, 80% of his MP''s who work with him day in and day out have already told us.

 

 

But do we?  There's a hardcore within Labour that cant stand him and want him out, we know that.  But mostly they're the people who put Labour in the view of the public, to be basically the Tories in disguise.

 

Perhaps it would be better if they actually did split and formed a new party spearheaded by Blair (he's definitely angling for it!).

 

Regards the 'litany of bribes'.  That's pretty much how i'd describe every manifesto ever!

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

But do we?  There's a hardcore within Labour that cant stand him and want him out, we know that.  But mostly they're the people who put Labour in the view of the public, to be basically the Tories in disguise.

 

Perhaps it would be better if they actually did split and formed a new party spearheaded by Blair (he's definitely angling for it!).

 

Regards the 'litany of bribes'.  That's pretty much how i'd describe every manifesto ever!

 

.., lies, and false promises.

[Guest]

Funny w every chance I give to the Tory supporters to explain what they actually believe in policy wise they can't actually answer. They also can't say what they think is wrong with Labour's policies. I'll just assume they are in positions that directly gain from Tory rule. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Funny w every chance I give to the Tory supporters to explain what they actually believe in policy wise they can't actually answer. They also can't say what they think is wrong with Labour's policies. I'll just assume they are in positions that directly gain from Tory rule. 

I'll go through that post when I have time.

 

You seen to think though that just because people say something it can happen, I could promise everyone a million quid, would be the most popular policy ever but people wouldn't vote for me as they would know I couldn't deliver it.

 

If people just believed empty platitudes Miliband would have won the election after he unveiled his Edstone, problem is most people realised it was just meaningless bullshit dressed up as policy.

 

Our debt needs to be tackled, there nothing progressive about selling bonds to the richest to fund it that then has to be paid back by the taxpayer.

[davieG]

The way I see it is the Tories have yet to release their manifesto and are keeping it close to their chests where as Labour are drop feeding theres, 2 different approaches and until the full offerings from all parties are out there then there's nothing to compare.

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Funny w every chance I give to the Tory supporters to explain what they actually believe in policy wise they can't actually answer. They also can't say what they think is wrong with Labour's policies. I'll just assume they are in positions that directly gain from Tory rule. 

 

It's a proven fact, that when policies are presented in a blind test without saying whose those policies are, Labour come out very favourably.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'll go through that post when I have time.

 

You seen to think though that just because people say something it can happen, I could promise everyone a million quid, would be the most popular policy ever but people wouldn't vote for me as they would know I couldn't deliver it.

 

If people just believed empty platitudes Miliband would have won the election after he unveiled his Edstone, problem is most people realised it was just meaningless bullshit dressed up as policy.

 

Our debt needs to be tackled, there nothing progressive about selling bonds to the richest to fund it that then has to be paid back by the taxpayer.

But this is why we don't ever see change. Every time there's a change candidate people say 'oh it can't be done' and vote for more of the same. 

We need to reduce the deficit through growth. We can't keep cutting. I work in the NHS at a level where I get to see and discuss the financial challenges and this government will end the NHS at this rate. The suspicion has always been that this is exactly what they want. 

Our debt is from selling bonds to the rich -who else do you think we owe the money to exactly? 

[Guest]

And I'll add that the debt is relatively immaterial. The government can create money at any time of its choosing as we are masters of our own currency. Whilst creating large sums does risk inflation, if it had been done two or three years ago they could have cleared half the nation's debt with the money given to the banks with the same zero impact on inflation. 

In terms of deficit, governments historically have borrowed as inflation means that the amount aid back is worth less than the amount borrowed, and with interest costs on top it is still relatively low cost. This is why governments across the globe have run deficits for decades. It isn't one fixed amount which has to be paid back on date x, it's a series of tiny loans each paid back in series. The problem is that deficits got used to cover normal expenditure rather than capital projects. 

If we want to reduce the deficit we need to increase growth. The only way to do this is to inject finance into the real economy. Cutting means that less money is being put into the real economy - people's wages, business profits etc - and so tax takes will keep going down as spending power is reduced. 

 

[sphericalfox]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But this is why we don't ever see change. Every time there's a change candidate people say 'oh it can't be done' and vote for more of the same. 

We need to reduce the deficit through growth. We can't keep cutting. I work in the NHS at a level where I get to see and discuss the financial challenges and this government will end the NHS at this rate. The suspicion has always been that this is exactly what they want. 

Our debt is from selling bonds to the rich -who else do you think we owe the money to exactly? 

It's not a suspicion. It's laid out in black and white in Lansley's paper. Oliver Letwin spelled it out.