General Election 2017

[Bold Seagull]

Take the claim £350m that might be spent on the NHS, it made sense even if for accuracy the weekly sum needed to be re-calculated lower, but any government could use the saving on the NHS or any other worthy national expense or combination of them, it told a story.

Yeah, a very fictional story!

It didn't make any sense, and it was a blatant lie because it was clear we were never going to be better off after Brexit. There are no huge savings to be made. There won't suddenly be additional funds. It was a lie no matter how you wish to dress it up as 'making sense' because it doesn't, and didn't. Re-calculated lower, ffs.

 

[Gwylan]

Over estimating, three quarters reside in Brighton Pavilion (Based on most common ward residences) -17,000. Of this a third will not vote.

Let's call 12,000 as an estimate in Pavilion.

That's a very high estimate; young people are less likely to vote. In fact, in 2015 just 43% of 18-24 year-olds voted. Even if you assume that students are more likely to vote, it's probably closer to half of that 17,000.

The other factor is not all students vote in Brighton. When I was at uni, I voted in my home constituency rather than where I was living, there will be many students who do that (there will also be Brighton students who have a postal vote for Pavilion but your argument of non-payment of council tax doesn't apply as their families will be paying it).

So, even if every student voter went Green, there are lot of other non-student voters going that way.

The other thing with this student = green fallacy is that are a lot of towns and cities with as students as Brighton: if the student=green argument held, why aren't there 30 or 40 Green MPs?

 

[Bozza]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39743129

The UK economy grew by just 0.3% at the start of the year, the slowest growth rate since the first three months of 2016, according to official figures. The Office for National Statistics said that the slower pace in the January-to-March period was due mainly to the service sector, which also grew by 0.3% against 0.8% at the end of 2016.

Tories can't be trusted to run the economy.

What a bizarre post.

Do you have any evidence that conclusively proves that over the period in question "Tories = low growth, Labour = higher growth" instead of "Tories = low growth, Labour = even lower growth"?

 

[CHAPPERS]

I live in a VERY non student area (dontchaknow) and I've not seen anything but Green posters up.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Just a thought about the political history of the 'Brighton' area and a review of today's political landscape.

MP's
1950 Sir William Teeling. Conservative.
1969 by election Julian Amery. Conservative.
1992 Sir Dereck Spencer. Conservative.
1997 David Leper. Labour. Holds the seat for 13yrs.
2010 Caroline Lucas. Green Party

What happened during those years?

The university of Brighton was granted official status in 1992.
The UofB increased in size 1994.

Hmmm

By 2003/4 the university had increased in size exponentially.
By 2011 gained international recognition

So Uni students who pay no council tax but have the vote when of age seem to have had a say.
When I was young I was ideologically driven, unaware of political reality that stretches across ages.
The voting in Brighton is warped.

A lot of people who aren't Green Party supporters also vote for Caroline because she's an excellent local MP. I would if I lived in that constituency. My friend who is ostensibly as Tory as you get votes for her because she was a tremendous help with very difficult situation that he and his family faced. In 2015 you would walk through Pavillion and see green coloured posters in windows all over, many in areas where there are just as many normal family homes as student accommodation, but they didn't say "Vote Green". They said "re-elect Caroline Lucas". She has a massive personal vote just as Andrew Bowden did in Kemp Town for 27 years - again I know people who actively dislike the tories but voted for him personally.

On that note Simon Kirby has to be worried because IMO he's f***ing useless.

 

[BigGully]

Yeah, a very fictional story!

It didn't make any sense, and it was a blatant lie because it was clear we were never going to be better off after Brexit. There are no huge savings to be made. There won't suddenly be additional funds. It was a lie no matter how you wish to dress it up as 'making sense' because it doesn't, and didn't. Re-calculated lower, ffs.

You can only offset the savings if you factor in a negative future forecast as a direct consequence of Brexit, of course its clear that you guy's are playing 'catch up' when it comes to your current forecasting capabilites, so the point still stands.

The recalculation was not in reference to any unsubstantiated future impact on our economy, it was just the difference of the claimed contribution of £350m a week without factoring in the rebates etc, so the net contribution is nearer to £170m a week and thats a fact.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I live in a VERY non student area (dontchaknow) and I've not seen anything but Green posters up.

People who make this claim haven't been for many walks around Pavilion. Lots of big family houses all with vote Green posters.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What a bizarre post.

Do you have any evidence that conclusively proves that over the period in question "Tories = low growth, Labour = higher growth" instead of "Tories = low growth, Labour = even lower growth"?

I'm just looking at May's leadership here and her performance with the economy she inherited. Doesn't look good does it?

 

[Bozza]

I'm just looking at May's leadership here and her performance with the economy she inherited. Doesn't look good.

You're just making it up then, as I thought. Thanks.

I'm going with: Low growth under the Tories is better than lower growth under Labour. I can't prove it of course, but that doesn't seem to matter in your line of "debate".

 

[BigGully]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39743129

The UK economy grew by just 0.3% at the start of the year, the slowest growth rate since the first three months of 2016, according to official figures. The Office for National Statistics said that the slower pace in the January-to-March period was due mainly to the service sector, which also grew by 0.3% against 0.8% at the end of 2016.

Tories can't be trusted to run the economy.

Out of all the economic stats you will have the opportunity to sneer over in the coming weeks, months and years, you choose one that is 'the slowest' since, wait for it ....... last year yet it still shows growth, how desperate are you for the UK to fail ?

 

[Eeyore]

That's a very high estimate; young people are less likely to vote. In fact, in 2015 just 43% of 18-24 year-olds voted. Even if you assume that students are more likely to vote, it's probably closer to half of that 17,000.

The other factor is not all students vote in Brighton. When I was at uni, I voted in my home constituency rather than where I was living, there will be many students who do that (there will also be Brighton students who have a postal vote for Pavilion but your argument of non-payment of council tax doesn't apply as their families will be paying it).

So, even if every student voter went Green, there are lot of other non-student voters going that way.

The other thing with this student = green fallacy is that are a lot of towns and cities with as students as Brighton: if the student=green argument held, why aren't there 30 or 40 Green MPs?

You thoughts serve to make my point more solid. I rather hope your views on this are read too.

The idea that students got Caroline Lucas elected is absurd. It was simply folk who want something different.

One of the funniest moments of a previous election was Big Warren's comment, in his capacity as local Labour leader, on Green posters in student houses. He clearly doesn't remember 1986 when Labour went hard to court the student vote locally. Warren Morgan does 'foot in mouth' very well.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You're just making it up then, as I thought. Thanks.

I'm going with: Low growth under the Tories is better than lower growth under Labour. I can't prove it of course, but that doesn't seem to matter in your line of "debate".

I didn't mention Labour. It's you who has decided on using them as a comparator, which is a bit pointless given they're not in power. Maybe comparing against other nations might be a better barometer?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Out of all the economic stats you will have the opportunity to sneer over in the coming weeks, months and years, you choose one that is 'the slowest' since, wait for it ....... last year yet it still shows growth, how desperate are you for the UK to fail ?

Desperate isn't a word I'd use. Do I want the Tories to fail? Difficult question as a lot of harm will be done. Do I trust them to make the right decisions on the economy? No, eye watering levels of national debt never ever seen before, tax revenues down, the plunging value of the pound and slowing economic growth suggest they're not a party to be trusted with the economy. Surely someone can do better than this piss poor performance?

 

[Guinness Boy]

You're just making it up then, as I thought. Thanks.

I'm going with: Low growth under the Tories is better than lower growth under Labour. I can't prove it of course, but that doesn't seem to matter in your line of "debate".

GDP under Labour was second only to the US over the same period and greater than Germany, Italy, Japan and France. It was also a great deal higher than 0.3%

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/conference_papers/15b_11_2011/CEP_Report_UK_Business_15112011.pdf


The actual question we should be asking - and here I suspect I agree with you more than HT - is would a Corbyn led government do any better? I'm not sure they would. But a more centre-ist (Blaireite if you have to), balanced Labour government delivered much better than our international competitors and FAR better than May has if you take GDP as your sole measure of success.

 

[Bozza]

I didn't mention Labour. It's you who has decided on using them as a comparator, which is a bit pointless given they're not in power. Maybe comparing against other nations might be a better barometer?

Other nations?

The UK had the second highest growth in the G7 in 2016. It was only pipped to first place by Germany in the last quarter of the year. The final result: 1.9% v 1.8%.

I'm just off to dig out where you posted about this triumph. I mean you did, didn't you? I know it doesn't suit your rather tedious miopic agenda, but I'm sure you posted about it anyway.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

You're just making it up then, as I thought. Thanks.

I'm going with: Low growth under the Tories is better than lower growth under Labour. I can't prove it of course, but that doesn't seem to matter in your line of "debate".

Following the financial crisis the economy was growing steady under Labour in line with the US and then the Conservatives took charge, as soon as their austerity measures hit growth slowed significantly (significantly weaker than US growth) and has stayed low and is now dipping further. During that time the tories have nearly trippled national debt.

 

[Bozza]

Anyway, getting back on track, and something I've been meaning to post for a few days...

Am I the only one right of centre (but I wouldn't say absolutely right) that is somewhat surprised by the lead that the Tories and May, in particular, seem to have. I can find very little to endear me to Theresa May whatsoever. She just seems thoroughly unlikeable with no warmth of any note.

 

[Beach Hut]

Anyway, getting back on track, and something I've been meaning to post for a few days...

Am I the only one right of centre (but I wouldn't say absolutely right) that is somewhat surprised by the lead that the Tories and May, in particular, seem to have. I can find very little to endear me to Theresa May whatsoever. She just seems thoroughly unlikeable with no warmth of any note.

I am as well as May is extremely unlikeable but has zero opposition at present

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

You're just making it up then, as I thought. Thanks.

I'm going with: Low growth under the Tories is better than lower growth under Labour. I can't prove it of course, but that doesn't seem to matter in your line of "debate".

there's no correlation between the party in power and economic performance, either way, I've tried to find some evidence but its tough. What usually happens is governments get the credit for a good economy, and the blame for a bad economy, and government switches happen in the latter case. Right to left and left to right.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Other nations?

The UK had the second highest growth in the G7 in 2016. It was only pipped to first place by Germany in the last quarter of the year. The final result: 1.9% v 1.8%.

I'm just off to dig out where you posted about this triumph. I mean you did, didn't you? I know it doesn't suit your rather tedious miopic agenda, but I'm sure you posted about it anyway.

Which perfectly backs up my point. 1.9 last year, 0.3 now. The Tories, which in the context of now, the election and this thread is the current May led party, can't be trusted.