Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The General Election Thread

How are you voting?

  • Conservative and Unionist Party

    Votes: 176 32.3%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 146 26.8%
  • Liberal Democrat’s

    Votes: 139 25.5%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 44 8.1%
  • Independent Candidate

    Votes: 4 0.7%
  • Monster Raving Looney Party

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 29 5.3%

  • Total voters
    545
  • Poll closed .


Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,652
From my original entry 'When I raise this point people say it's sour grapes. Not one has offered an objection response beyond 'it's just the way it is'.

You seem to have confirmed that.

I have been raising this issue for many years irrespective of the government.

Ok, if you say it is not sour grapes, but I think it is! It is a system that clearly suits most folk, otherwise it would have been changed surely. That is reason enough. You might not like it and as you say, you have raised the question repeatedly, but that does not make our fist part the post necessarily wrong. I assume you favour PR, but that too can cause problems, as wrangling and confusion can occur.
 




Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,652
Did you ever think that if a Conservative voter on here could actually dispute the list, offer a valid counter argument, I wouldn’t mention it so much? But as no Tory voter has been able to present an informed counter argument, I will keep reminding you of what you’re voting for, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you.

Of course there are many reasons for poverty and homelessness. But the fact remains that, since 2010, poverty has seen the biggest climb since 1988, food bank use is up 2,400%, homelessness is up 1,000%, rough sleeping is up 1,200%. In that time we have seen a wave of cuts to welfare and public services. The two are intrinsically linked. The UN stated that the UK government has inflicted “great misery” on its people with “punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous” austerity policies. The same report also found that 14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty and 1.5 million are destitute, being unable to afford basic essentials, citing figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

The UN human rights council said that in the UK “poverty is a political choice”. Adding;
- Austerity Britain was in breach of four UN human rights agreements relating to women, children, disabled people and economic and social rights. “If you got a group of misogynists in a room and said how can we make this system work for men and not for women they would not have come up with too many ideas that are not already in place,” he said.
- The limit on benefits payments to only the first two children in a family was “in the same ballpark” as China’s one-child policy because it punished people who had a third child.
- Cuts of 50% to council budgets were slashing at Britain’s “culture of local concern” and “damaging the fabric” of society.
- The middle classes would “find themselves living in an increasingly hostile and unwelcoming society because community roots are being broken”.

If you want to eradicate these things, why vote for a party that is making them worse? ??? Simply burying your head in the sand won’t make these uncomfortable truths go away.

I can distinctly recall posters giving evidence to suggest that there are many reasons for the social ills of which you speak, and I include austerity in that! That has undoubtedly seen hardship. But I am not as gullible (nor am I uncomfortable) as you are when it comes to figures and UN inspectors with an agenda. In the 1990s, for the first time at my school, to everyone's surprise, a child was allowed an extra 15 minutes to complete an exam. Last week I read that 1 in 5 now is allowed extra time. I am not in any way opposed to children having every opportunity to do well, but once a system is in place to help, the definition of who qualifies becomes ever wider, and thus I am not as believing as you are when it comes to figures. And what is one's definition of poverty?
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,943
Faversham
Just listening to R5 interviewing the youngest MP, a newly elected labour MP. Apparently, according to her, 'there's no going back to free market economics'. Does that mean that labour are proposing to enter a suicide pact with North Korea?

Crikey, the new wave of Corbynist labour MPs are evidently in the throes of an acute attack of a bacterial Delusion infection (Corbynococcus Fuktintheheadiensis).

:facepalm:
 


midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,743
The Black Country
I can distinctly recall posters giving evidence to suggest that there are many reasons for the social ills of which you speak, and I include austerity in that! That has undoubtedly seen hardship. But I am not as gullible (nor am I uncomfortable) as you are when it comes to figures and UN inspectors with an agenda. In the 1990s, for the first time at my school, to everyone's surprise, a child was allowed an extra 15 minutes to complete an exam. Last week I read that 1 in 5 now is allowed extra time. I am not in any way opposed to children having every opportunity to do well, but once a system is in place to help, the definition of who qualifies becomes ever wider, and thus I am not as believing as you are when it comes to figures. And what is one's definition of poverty?

I recall people stating that poverty has not risen (by much) but it’s still risen by the biggest amount since 1988. Between 2017-18 the Resolution Foundation states the official poverty rate increased from 22.1% to 23.2%, the child poverty rate rose in 2017-18 from 30.3% to 33.4%. Cuts to benefits and inflation are blamed for the rise, benefit levels have remained unchanged in money terms while inflation erodes their real value.

As for foodbank use and homelessness, those are stone wall facts and you’re avoidance of those facts merely demonstrates the ‘burying your head’ I mentioned earlier (good work channelling your inner Michael Gove - who needs experts and facts, eh?) And when it comes to austerity, George Osborne himself admitted it wasn’t a necessity, it was a political choice (whilst also admitting Labour weren’t to blame for the recession in 2008). If the ‘cutting our way to prosperity’ Tory ideology actually worked, could you please explain the last decade of feeble economic growth, stagnating wages, the aforementioned rising poverty, homeless and foodbank use and failing public services?

And if you want to know how poverty is measured, I’d advise you to look here https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/measuring-poverty or here https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/
 
Last edited:


Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,201
Withdean area
Just listening to R5 interviewing the youngest MP, a newly elected labour MP. Apparently, according to her, 'there's no going back to free market economics'. Does that mean that labour are proposing to enter a suicide pact with North Korea?

Crikey, the new wave of Corbynist labour MPs are evidently in the throes of an acute attack of a bacterial Delusion infection (Corbynococcus Fuktintheheadiensis).

:facepalm:

Getting the impression that their primary aim in life is to keep centre-left types from ever being significant in the party leadership and direction again. James O’Brien covered this on LBC today .... the Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy’s of the party have been told by aggressive members in the last 4 years: “If you don’t like it, **** off out of the party” if they had the gumption to question any Momentum policy or dared to mention anti-semitism.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,999
From my original entry 'When I raise this point people say it's sour grapes. Not one has offered an objection response beyond 'it's just the way it is'.

You seem to have confirmed that.

I have been raising this issue for many years irrespective of the government.

i wonder if you were concerned in 1997-2005, when smaller votes for Labour lead to large number seats and majority? think of all those Conservatives and Liberals who had no voice.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,943
Faversham
Did you ever think that if a Conservative voter on here could actually dispute the list, offer a valid counter argument, I wouldn’t mention it so much? But as no Tory voter has been able to present an informed counter argument, I will keep reminding you of what you’re voting for, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes you.

Of course there are many reasons for poverty and homelessness. But the fact remains that, since 2010, poverty has seen the biggest climb since 1988, food bank use is up 2,400%, homelessness is up 1,000%, rough sleeping is up 1,200%. In that time we have seen a wave of cuts to welfare and public services. The two are intrinsically linked. The UN stated that the UK government has inflicted “great misery” on its people with “punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous” austerity policies. The same report also found that 14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty and 1.5 million are destitute, being unable to afford basic essentials, citing figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

The UN human rights council said that in the UK “poverty is a political choice”. Adding;
- Austerity Britain was in breach of four UN human rights agreements relating to women, children, disabled people and economic and social rights. “If you got a group of misogynists in a room and said how can we make this system work for men and not for women they would not have come up with too many ideas that are not already in place,” he said.
- The limit on benefits payments to only the first two children in a family was “in the same ballpark” as China’s one-child policy because it punished people who had a third child.
- Cuts of 50% to council budgets were slashing at Britain’s “culture of local concern” and “damaging the fabric” of society.
- The middle classes would “find themselves living in an increasingly hostile and unwelcoming society because community roots are being broken”.

If you want to eradicate these things, why vote for a party that is making them worse? ??? Simply burying your head in the sand won’t make these uncomfortable truths go away.

Boris won because there was a sufficient number who wanted to 'get brexit done' and/or who didn't like Corbyn. It had nothing to do with recognising poverty, thinking about who was to blame, and prioritising this issue when deciding how to vote.

Whether Boris cacks it all up, removing that issue as an obstacle to voting labour, is something that will be forthcoming in the fullness of time. Whether labour cack up their leadership process, allowing Corbyn to manage the transition and see a corbynista succeed him, with the inevitable outcome of doing the same thing twice and expecting a better result, is in the hands of the labour party.
 


midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,743
The Black Country
Boris won because there was a sufficient number who wanted to 'get brexit done' and/or who didn't like Corbyn. It had nothing to do with recognising poverty, thinking about who was to blame, and prioritising this issue when deciding how to vote.

Whether Boris cacks it all up, removing that issue as an obstacle to voting labour, is something that will be forthcoming in the fullness of time. Whether labour cack up their leadership process, allowing Corbyn to manage the transition and see a corbynista succeed him, with the inevitable outcome of doing the same thing twice and expecting a better result, is in the hands of the labour party.

You say electing a ‘Corbynista’ would be cack up but I’m not sure I agree. I agree that Brexit and Corbyn were barriers to people voting Labour. However the Labour policies were, generally, well received and popular amongst the general public. Labour went left in the 2017 GE and had the biggest Labour vote surge since WW2. It was appeasing the centrists in the party and backing a 2nd referendum that saw Labour lose ground, especially in the north of the country. At least, that’s my opinion on the matter.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,943
Faversham
Getting the impression that their primary aim in life is to keep centre-left types from ever being significant in the party leadership and direction again. James O’Brien covered this on LBC today .... the Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy’s of the party have been told by aggressive members in the last 4 years: “If you don’t like it, **** off out of the party” if they had the gumption to question any Momentum policy or dared to mention anti-semitism.

In which case I am increasingly becomeing Team Jess. Haven't looked up Lisa yet....

Get ten teens intoxicated on lager in a bus shelter with some ciggies and a spray can and it's '**** off if you don't like it'.

Get ten momentum chums, intoxicated on their 'power' in a meeting hall, with radical policies and no compromise with the electorate, and it's '**** off if you don't like it'.

This is only going to end one way, isn't it? ???
 


amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,816
I recall people stating that poverty has not risen (by much) but it’s still risen by the biggest amount since 1988. Between 2017-18 the Resolution Foundation states the official poverty rate increased from 22.1% to 23.2%, the child poverty rate rose in 2017-18 from 30.3% to 33.4%. Cuts to benefits and inflation are blamed for the rise, benefit levels have remained unchanged in money terms while inflation erodes their real value.

As for foodbank use and homelessness, those are stone wall facts and you’re avoidance of those facts merely demonstrates the ‘burying your head’ I mentioned earlier (good work channelling your inner Michael Gove - who needs experts and facts, eh?) And when it comes to austerity, George Osborne himself admitted it wasn’t a necessity, it was a political choice (whilst also admitting Labour weren’t to blame for the recession in 2008). If the ‘cutting our way to prosperity’ Tory ideology actually worked, could you please explain the last decade of feeble economic growth, stagnating wages, the aforementioned rising poverty, homeless and foodbank use and failing public services?

And if you want to know how poverty is measured, I’d advise you to look here https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/measuring-poverty or here https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

If only we had all voted labour years ago. There would now be no national debt ,schools would be great, no homelessness.100% employment but anybody that doesnt work can claim an extra £10k State pension of £15k, Free nursing care to all, No tuition fees.An abundance of nurses earning £50k a year, free broadband, Cheap bus and train travel,everybodybody on 4 day week ,min wage of £20 hr. 7% pa increase to all public employees. Why didnt we listen
 


portslade seagull

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2003
17,943
portslade
If only we had all voted labour years ago. There would now be no national debt ,schools would be great, no homelessness.100% employment but anybody that doesnt work can claim an extra £10k State pension of £15k, Free nursing care to all, No tuition fees.An abundance of nurses earning £50k a year, free broadband, Cheap bus and train travel,everybodybody on 4 day week ,min wage of £20 hr. 7% pa increase to all public employees. Why didnt we listen

Free fags and beer
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,943
Faversham
You say electing a ‘Corbynista’ would be cack up but I’m not sure I agree. I agree that Brexit and Corbyn were barriers to people voting Labour. However the Labour policies were, generally, well received and popular amongst the general public. Labour went left in the 2017 GE and had the biggest Labour vote surge since WW2. It was appeasing the centrists in the party and backing a 2nd referendum that saw Labour lose ground, especially in the north of the country. At least, that’s my opinion on the matter.

I didn't say that, actually. And I certainly didn't say that labour's policies were to blame.

No, the corbynista package is a mix of good and bad policies, presented generally badly, with no future expense spared, a dash of antisemitism and a hint of class war. The resultant shitty pie is what lost the election, despite some of the ingredients being of the finest organic quality.

And if you still don't get me, you're being obtuse.

I have said repeatedly I am a lifelong labour voter. I will probably vote labour next time. But I don't just want to feel virtuous (well, I don't even feel that to be fair) by voting red knowing my vote is wasted. No, I want a coherent and effective labour party to win.

Corbyn was never going to win, and another useless clone of his won't win either.

By the way, there is a new mantra that 'labour's policies were well received and popular'. That is the new party line. I heard the young new labour MP say the same thing on R5 an hour ago. Now you say it ??? Mate, you're better than that!

Like I said, I will probably vote labour again. But deluded crap about how the policies are loved, isn't convincing me, so it won't convince those who didn't vote labour. Deluded factually, and as a strategy - it is like saying to your ex bird that 'you left me, but you always loved me more than the new boyfriend'. She won't come back to you, she will just tell you to eff off.

As for 'appeasing centerists by offering a second referendum lost labour the north'....well, I accept Corbyn's strategy (to offer a referendum but not campaign) was idiotic. But he didn't lose the GE just because Burnley told him to eff off. If you think labour's strategy going forward is to appease Burnley then why not advocate bringing back racism?

Look, you are upset. But you have to let it go. Let go of the current party line. It is a bad as 'let's get brexit done' except that that party line was sold, bought and is now being oven-baked (we shall see what sort of mess emerges, but that's for another time). Labour has no bun in the oven. It doesn't even have an over at the moment(um).
 


FIVESTEPS

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2014
384
Getting the impression that their primary aim in life is to keep centre-left types from ever being significant in the party leadership and direction again. James O’Brien covered this on LBC today .... the Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy’s of the party have been told by aggressive members in the last 4 years: “If you don’t like it, **** off out of the party” if they had the gumption to question any Momentum policy or dared to mention anti-semitism.

Jess Phillip's has no chance she's out of step with Corbyns Labour, she has a sense of humour
 






vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
28,264
The new culture secretary is Lady Morgan formerly known as Nicky Morgan MP. How's that peoples government going ???

Enjoyed the " Car Crash " interview with Morgan re the " 50,000 new nurses ".... she was adamant that you can count 19,000 retained nurses as " new " … It's absolutely amazing, they have all lied their way in to office after stiffing the country for 10 years and promising a Brexit that they know will make the country worse off financially. Penn and Teller could not have done better than Johnson and Cummings.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,855
Ok, if you say it is not sour grapes, but I think it is! It is a system that clearly suits most folk, otherwise it would have been changed surely. That is reason enough. You might not like it and as you say, you have raised the question repeatedly, but that does not make our fist part the post necessarily wrong. I assume you favour PR, but that too can cause problems, as wrangling and confusion can occur.

It won't be changed. Even though it operates in most western nations. Only Italy really seems to struggle with it.

Labour and the Conservatives don't want it to change. A referendum on AV was introduced and it was a confusing fudge that the press successfully waged war against.

The facts remain though. Under the constituency model people's votes have less value. I live in a marginal so I have weight. If I lived in other areas my vote would have no power.

A democratically elected government should reflect the populations divisions of votes. So if I live in a backwater it wouldn't matter. The party I vote for will benefit from my say equally.

Blair got a mandate in 2005 with just 36% of the vote. The SDP got 25% in 1983 and few seats. Neither Thatcher or Blair had the majority of the country's backing at the ballot box.

That is not the 'will of the people'

I still await a successful counter argument beyond 'ce la vie'. Except, perhaps, that it makes the extreme footholds harder to secure. That argument has some weight.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,999
A democratically elected government should reflect the populations divisions of votes. So if I live in a backwater it wouldn't matter. The party I vote for will benefit from my say equally.

firstly we dont elect the government but parliament. secondly we vote for the candidate to represent our constituency, not a party. thats where the problems stem from. i agree there should be some reform, trouble is the debate always starts from flawed arguments, and inconsistent or bias objectives.
 










Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here