General Election 2019 thread (29 Viewers)

[SkyblueBazza]

Agreed. I don't get the obsession over what his personal stance is when he has repeatedly said its down to the will of the party not his personal preference. Surely thats what a party leader should do by default or is the preference to have some sort of dictatorship?

Which is why people coin the phrase about the 'tail wagging the dog'

Labour needs someone with the ability to inspire and influence rather than one who says 'I will do what they want'

The conviction is different. And that affects credibility more than an idiot who spouts nonsense. An idiot that inspires will always win against someone that is just going with the flow!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

---

[clint van damme]

The Remain friendly CBI are not keen on labours manifesto!!

so answer this, re: nationalisation, are you happy that some of the money we pay our bills with is used by utility companies to pay huge dividends to foreign investors? Wouldn't you prefer your money to be spent on infrastructure and cutting the cost of bills?
Are you happy that a successful rail franchise keeps their profits but a failing one is bailed out with our money?

Isn't it strange that those 3 hotbeds of capitalism, London, New York and Honk Kong all run on (pretty much) public owned transport systems.

 

[Macca]

It’s the election options from hell. I never thought it would happen but I think all things considered it’s a labour vote for me. Let’s hope they avoid any illegal wars and catastrophic immigration policies this time. I do feel it’s the best chance for a sensible Brexit solution and removal of some of the inequality in society at least

 

[SBAndy]

Behaviour will only change if there is a financial incentive. If businesses are selling £x & making £y profit margin on it. You can change whatever you want...the investor will still only invest if they make £y. If they don't invest the business is unviable & therefore doomed.

The first thing we have to change is the ROI expectation.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

You’re looking at it the wrong way round. Don’t get me wrong, long-term I agree with that premise but short-term the point is that if the cost of oil goes up due to the associated tax (as you would expect to be the case) either companies take a hit on margin or they switch to cheaper alternatives. The entire policy is built around reducing our reliance on oil as a society and investing in making more sustainable alternatives cheaper. Like someone has touched on before, the real incentive for private entities to invest in green alternatives is to make it financially beneficial for them to switch.

 

[CCFCSteve]

You’re looking at it the wrong way round. Don’t get me wrong, long-term I agree with that premise but short-term the point is that if the cost of oil goes up due to the associated tax (as you would expect to be the case) either companies take a hit on margin or they switch to cheaper alternatives. The entire policy is built around reducing our reliance on oil as a society and investing in making more sustainable alternatives cheaper. Like someone has touched on before, the real incentive for private entities to invest in green alternatives is to make it financially beneficial for them to switch.

I agree with the premise and the underlying aim but realistically, in the meantime, the consumer will pay (until those alternatives are readily available).

ps and that’s not even going into the impact on pension schemes which will have a significant exposure to these companies and are likely to be hit

 

[SBAndy]

I agree with the premise and the underlying aim but realistically, in the meantime, the consumer will pay (until those alternatives are readily available).

ps and that’s not even going into the impact on pension schemes which will have a significant exposure to these companies and are likely to be hit

Then it’s a higher cost. Deal with it or find something else that does the same job. Basic economic method of tackling negative externalities. If there is a gap in the market then there will be development of products to fill that gap.

Take your point on pension funds but ultimately you could use that argument with anything. Fact is, a lot of the multinationals are not environmentally sustainable. They have to change or people like me won’t get the opportunity to draw my pension due to climate disaster.

 

[Astute]

The LABOUR position is campaign remain in a 2nd ref (although it's being whispered rather than shouted). Corbyn's personal position I admit I don't know. But it's the party policy that matters. As for whether that will result in remain is another point because as they say it's 2nd ref and abide by result. But even leave in their case is likely to be a soft Brexit.



This is what you said


You said you wanted to know what Corbyn will do, hence the 'how an old man will vote'. The important thing is what LABOUR PARTY POLICY is, not that of an individual. For all I know Corbyn himself may well vote Leave in another referendum, but it's not particularly relevant if the party position is to campaign for remain.

So where did I ask what he would vote for? You know I had been saying which way he would campaign for. Would he campaign for leave like he has always wanted or remain like most MP's seem to want.

But yes it is always good to twist another angle.

 

[Mcbean]

Just read the Labour manifesto - it’s going to be used for the next Citizen Smith script

 

[CCFCSteve]

Then it’s a higher cost. Deal with it or find something else that does the same job. Basic economic method of tackling negative externalities. If there is a gap in the market then there will be development of products to fill that gap.

Take your point on pension funds but ultimately you could use that argument with anything. Fact is, a lot of the multinationals are not environmentally sustainable. They have to change or people like me won’t get the opportunity to draw my pension due to climate disaster.

But there will always be a lag. For example the electric vehicle is available but they are currently expensive and not in reach of a majority of the public (not just the base cost the cost of chopping in your old car, it’s not a priority for the average man/woman). A majority of people will still be driving petrol and diesel in five years. Most logistics and transport firms will have petrol/diesel fleets, therefore any increases will flow into product prices.

Tax oil companies now and costs will be passed onto public/consumer, probably hitting people who can least afford it most.

As I say, the premise and underlying aim is one I 100% agree with (we need to move to cleaner energy production/usage quickly) but let’s not kid ourselves it wont cost us all to do this. I’ve always thought pushing people towards public transport is the key but successive governments haven’t done enough in this area.

This ‘the manifesto will only cost the top 5%, billionaires, tech firms and oil companies’ is nonsense

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Corbyn was at my work today in my office ..presenting his manifesto .. so had a listen. I really like a lot of what he’s saying but he’s far too left for me and won’t commit either way on Brexit. Bizarrely there was a man dressed as a tree heckling him..... But if he committed to stay in Europe he would have my vote..... Corbyn not the tree man

Out of interest, if you like a lot of what he's saying, how can he be far too left for you?

All I'll say on Brexit is that his position gives the opportunity for Remain. That's denied by Johnson's position.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Then it’s a higher cost. Deal with it or find something else that does the same job. Basic economic method of tackling negative externalities. If there is a gap in the market then there will be development of products to fill that gap.

Take your point on pension funds but ultimately you could use that argument with anything. Fact is, a lot of the multinationals are not environmentally sustainable. They have to change or people like me won’t get the opportunity to draw my pension due to climate disaster.

Even the likes of BP are investing in green energy solutions - they will probably end up ahead of the game, so a pension investment in them would be ok.

 

[shmmeee]

But there will always be a lag. For example the electric vehicle is available but they are currently expensive and not in reach of a majority of the public (not just the base cost the cost of chopping in your old car, it’s not a priority for the average man/woman). A majority of people will still be driving petrol and diesel in five years. Most logistics and transport firms will have petrol/diesel fleets, therefore any increases will flow into product prices.

Tax oil companies now and costs will be passed onto public/consumer, probably hitting people who can least afford it most.

As I say, the premise and underlying aim is one I 100% agree with (we need to move to cleaner energy production/usage quickly) but let’s not kid ourselves it wont cost us all to do this. I’ve always thought pushing people towards public transport is the key but successive governments haven’t done enough in this area.

This ‘the manifesto will only cost the top 5%, billionaires, tech firms and oil companies’ is nonsense

There’s a lot of ifs and buts. The NES budget is probably quite lower than reality, but then they have a choice: restrict the service or raise taxes.

Read Stephen Bush’s Morning Call this morning and he talks about this. His point is that this applies to all the parties, it’s people expectations that differ. People expect the Libs and Tories to cut services in that situation and Labour to raise taxes. It’s a fair concern, but for me falls squarely in the category of “let’s cross that bridge when we get to it”.

Will everything in the manifesto get delivered as detailed? No probably not. Is the general direction towards a Nordic economy mode one I think it right? Yes. The details will always change from early predictions. I trust Labour to make the right choices. I think the historic evidence backs that up. We’ve never had a comparatively high tax burden in this country compared to the countries we should be following IMO.

 

[shmmeee]

Just read the Labour manifesto - it’s going to be used for the next Citizen Smith script

Got any specific policies you think are too left wing?

 

[shmmeee]

Out of interest, if you like a lot of what he's saying, how can he be far too left for you?

All I'll say on Brexit is that his position gives the opportunity for Remain. That's denied by Johnson's position.

Labours Brexit position is identical to the “party of remain”‘s one all the way up until Labour took it on. It was only then that Swinson went full FBPE Revoke at all costs.

 

[skybluetony176]

It’s the election options from hell. I never thought it would happen but I think all things considered it’s a labour vote for me. Let’s hope they avoid any illegal wars and catastrophic immigration policies this time. I do feel it’s the best chance for a sensible Brexit solution and removal of some of the inequality in society at least

That’s pretty much where I was in 2017. Since then however I’ve read up a lot on socialism, especially the Nordic Model that’s largely adopted in the happiest countries in the world and have had a road to Damascus convertion from Tory voter to socialist. On that front Labour is about as near as it gets in the U.K.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So where did I ask what he would vote for? You know I had been saying which way he would campaign for. Would he campaign for leave like he has always wanted or remain like most MP's seem to want.

But yes it is always good to twist another angle.

Are you in Islington? If not it doesn't matter which way he would campaign. If anything which way your local candidates would campaign is of more importance. Your vote would be for the LABOUR PARTY. So the position that should matter is which way the PARTY is going to campaign. That has been stated as remain. No deal for them is off the table.

I just don't get the obsession with what the party leader would prefer. Alexander, deep down, is a remainer. May campaigned as a remainer. Both have tried to negotiate an exit from the EU.

 

[Grendel]

Are you in Islington? If not it doesn't matter which way he would campaign. If anything which way your local candidates would campaign is of more importance. Your vote would be for the LABOUR PARTY. So the position that should matter is which way the PARTY is going to campaign. That has been stated as remain. No deal for them is off the table.

I just don't get the obsession with what the party leader would prefer. Alexander, deep down, is a remainer. May campaigned as a remainer. Both have tried to negotiate an exit from the EU.

I have the manifesto - where does it say they will campaign to remain?

 

[Astute]

Are you in Islington? If not it doesn't matter which way he would campaign. If anything which way your local candidates would campaign is of more importance. Your vote would be for the LABOUR PARTY. So the position that should matter is which way the PARTY is going to campaign. That has been stated as remain. No deal for them is off the table.

I just don't get the obsession with what the party leader would prefer. Alexander, deep down, is a remainer. May campaigned as a remainer. Both have tried to negotiate an exit from the EU.

I don't care about Boris. I won't vote leave and I won't vote Tory.

It has not been stated as remain. That is down to the rest of the parties. But there again you keep reading what I haven't said so no surprise you are reading what Corbyn hasn't said.

Or what is your excuse for what he said on TV the other day? Or should I say what he refused to say?

Let's put it a bit more simple for you. There is no doubt that Corbyn always wanted out of the EU. He won't say he will campaign for remain. Yes several have come out with reasons for this. But the reasons are guesses. And you telling me what you think doesn't make up for what he refuses to say.

 

[Astute]

I have the manifesto - where does it say they will campaign to remain?

It doesn't. The other parties say what they want. Yet I am supposed to believe in what Labour doesn't say.

 

[Grendel]

It doesn't. The other parties say what they want. Yet I am supposed to believe in what Labour doesn't say.

Dreamer is interpreting individual opinions as policy - it isn’t - the policy is to have no view

 

[fernandopartridge]

That’s pretty much where I was in 2017. Since then however I’ve read up a lot on socialism, especially the Nordic Model that’s largely adopted in the happiest countries in the world and have had a road to Damascus convertion from Tory voter to socialist. On that front Labour is about as near as it gets in the U.K.

And it's a pretty soft socialism at that.

The irony is that the Brexit / anti Labour crowd crow about the good old pre EU / EC days, but ignore that in those days Britain's tax rates were much higher AND there were numerous nationalised industries, far more than what is being proposed by Labour.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I don't care about Boris. I won't vote leave and I won't vote Tory.

It has not been stated as remain. That is down to the rest of the parties. But there again you keep reading what I haven't said so no surprise you are reading what Corbyn hasn't said.

Or what is your excuse for what he said on TV the other day? Or should I say what he refused to say?

Let's put it a bit more simple for you. There is no doubt that Corbyn always wanted out of the EU. He won't say he will campaign for remain. Yes several have come out with reasons for this. But the reasons are guesses. And you telling me what you think doesn't make up for what he refuses to say.

Again, why the obsession with Corbyn (or any leaders stance for that matter)? Last time I checked it was the Labour and Co-Operative Party, not the Jeremy Corbyn Party.

As I've said before if, for some odd reason, you will only either vote Labour or not at all, and that you don't want an option that might in any way result in leave then you'll have to not vote at all. Your decision is made.

 

[Grendel]

Again, why the obsession with Corbyn (or any leaders stance for that matter)? Last time I checked it was the Labour and Co-Operative Party, not the Jeremy Corbyn Party.

As I've said before if, for some odd reason, you will only either vote Labour or not at all, and that you don't want an option that might in any way result in leave then you'll have to not vote at all. Your decision is made.

have you read the manifesto regarding Brexit

the candidate for Hartlepool has been interviewed and stared the position will be to leave the EU

 

[shmmeee]

Does anyone even know how Boris voted? And is there any reason to believe him if he has answered?

Such a random thing. “I demand my leaders lie to me”. I don’t get 21st century politics at all.

Is it just because the media has told people it’s a big issue?

 

[skybluetony176]

I see that the Brexit Party must be Marxists with a magic money tree as well.

 

[Monners]

Isn’t politics dull

 

[hill83]

Got any specific policies you think are too left wing?

Getting to the byline and cutting it back with the left foot every time. Sometimes I’d prefer it if he cut in on his right to open the the angle and keep the right back guessing.

 

[M&B Stand]

And it's a pretty soft socialism at that.

The irony is that the Brexit / anti Labour crowd crow about the good old pre EU / EC days, but ignore that in those days Britain's tax rates were much higher AND there were numerous nationalised industries, far more than what is being proposed by Labour.

And it’s underpinned by free market capitalism.

 

[skybluetony176]

And it’s underpinned by free market capitalism.

Which again is the foundation of the Nordic Model. Them poor happy bastards.

 

[shmmeee]

And it’s underpinned by free market capitalism.

What is a mixed economy?

 

[shmmeee]

Isn’t politics dull

It’s been especially dull the last three years.

 

[CCFCSteve]

And it's a pretty soft socialism at that.

The irony is that the Brexit / anti Labour crowd crow about the good old pre EU / EC days, but ignore that in those days Britain's tax rates were much higher AND there were numerous nationalised industries, far more than what is being proposed by Labour.

Come on Fernando, soft socialism isn’t quite accurate... renationalisation of various industries and the inclusive ownership fund aren’t soft socialism.

Many of the basic underlying aims/policies are good but then they have just gone too far in these other areas for me.

ps I have no issue with exploring the re-nationalisation of a certain industry if it is hugely underperforming/a mess but I wouldn’t see this as an immediate priority hence the above comment...it is an ideological position being taken. The rail situation (half in half out of private ownership with network rail) certainly needs to be looked at for example but even with this I’m not convinced renationalisation is necessarily there answer. Broadband for free for all (renationalising part of BT) at a cost of tens of billions should not be a priority !

 

[shmmeee]

Come on Fernando, soft socialism isn’t quite accurate... renationalisation of various industries and the inclusive ownership fund aren’t soft socialism.

Many of the basic underlying aims/policies are good but then they have just gone too far in these other areas for me.

ps I have no issue with exploring the re-nationalisation of a certain industry if it is hugely underperforming/a mess but I wouldn’t see this as an immediate priority hence the above comment...it is an ideological position being taken. The rail situation (half in half out of private ownership with network rail) certainly needs to be looked at for example but even with this I’m not convinced renationalisation is necessarily there answer. Broadband for free for all (renationalising part of BT) at a cost of tens of billions should not be a priority !

Let me make a case for internet infrastructure being nationalised:

1) It’s a monopoly that was developed by the state. There’s no real competition. Virgin have sunk billions in and got nowhere near, the “competition” between ISPs is false because all rely on an OpenReach line. Currently we are handing private shareholders a monopoly position using assets created by the state at taxpayer expense

2) It’s an essential utility. These days internet access is required in many interactions with the state and is the primary place for education and entertainment. If we made libraries and post offices and TV licences free for certain people then the 21st century equivalent is broadband.
3) Full broadband access means we can move service access entirely online and reap the cost savings
4) (the most important IMO) National Security. Increasingly our biggest security threats are cyber based. Be it outright cyber espionage or more subtle interference having the infrastructure in private hands is a risk and we should be able to control who has access to the cables and boxes that make up our network in the same way we should for nuclear power.

 

[Astute]

Again, why the obsession with Corbyn (or any leaders stance for that matter)? Last time I checked it was the Labour and Co-Operative Party, not the Jeremy Corbyn Party.

As I've said before if, for some odd reason, you will only either vote Labour or not at all, and that you don't want an option that might in any way result in leave then you'll have to not vote at all. Your decision is made.

Correct.

So you are now saying that it doesn't matter what a leader of a party thinks or will do?

 

[Astute]

Does anyone even know how Boris voted? And is there any reason to believe him if he has answered?

Such a random thing. “I demand my leaders lie to me”. I don’t get 21st century politics at all.

Is it just because the media has told people it’s a big issue?

It IS a big issue for me.

Would you vote for a party that wants to leave if you wasn't 100% Labour?