[Politics] The General Election Thread

[Lincoln Imp]

So you're saying that Labour can still finish second in a two-horse race against an utterly shithouse opponent that they should be trouncing? As happened in 2017?

It's not the loftiest of ambitions, is it?

Agree with you about that but the hope for many of us is not that Labour come ahead of the Tories. That's not going to happen and, given that such an outcome would imply that the Labour would have an overall majority, I'd rather it didn't.

I simply want the Tories to fall short of 315-320 seats. Given that Johnson's party has few friends in parliament - it can't even rely on the creationists now - that might see the Labour Party in a position where it could lead a coalition (or similar) if it was prepared to accommodate the SNP on Indyref2 and give way to the LibDems on the question of leader.

I would have no problem with such an outcome but it's a long shot and of course current polls suggest that what you reasonably call the shithouse party will pass its magic threshold.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Agree with you about that but the hope for many of us is not that Labour come ahead of the Tories. That's not going to happen and, given that such an outcome would imply that the Labour would have an overall majority, I'd rather it didn't.

I simply want the Tories to fall short of 315-320 seats. Given that Johnson's party has few friends in parliament - it can't even rely on the creationists now - that might see the Labour Party in a position where it could lead a coalition (or similar) if it was prepared to accommodate the SNP on Indyref2 and give way to the LibDems on the question of leader.

I would have no problem with such an outcome but it's a long shot and of course current polls suggest that what you reasonably call the shithouse party will pass its magic threshold.

One of the most significant factors in helping the Tories achieve a majority would be a major increase in support for the Lib Dems compared to the last GE, splitting the opposition/remain vote ... happy campaigning

 

[Guinness Boy]

One of the most significant factors in helping the Tories achieve a majority would be a major increase in support for the Lib Dems compared to the last GE, splitting the opposition/remain vote ... happy campaigning

And one of the most significant factors in helping get Corbyn to lead a minority government would be an increase in Brexit Party support as the poll numbers for the two added together haven’t changed. Happy campaigning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hampster Gull]

One of the most significant factors in helping the Tories achieve a majority would be a major increase in support for the Lib Dems compared to the last GE, splitting the opposition/remain vote ... happy campaigning

Vote Liberal, Vote Revoke

 

[BLOCK F]

I really don't think that any Government's handling of the economy will have anything like the impact of Brexit. Even some sort of 'deal' along Johnson's line is going to take at least the next 5-10 years to sort out, and that is without renegotiating all the other trade deals that we give up when we leave the EU. The economy is going to continue to be throttled all this time, while extension after extension are negotiated (for which there is no basis, financial or otherwise in Johnson's proposal. One of the many reasons he pulled it before it could be properly scrutinised. The £36B we negotiated only covers us until the end of 2020, beyond that everything is open to start renegotiations all over again).

You just have to look at how long Canada's far simpler deal, with no service element has taken and that still isn't fully implemented.

But of course, Johnson says we won't need further extensions (but there again he also said we would be out by Oct 31st) .

I know the line that Johnson uses 'we start from a point of having the same regulations and rules making it a simpler deal' but the whole point of this whole clusterf*** is to negotiate a deal that will allow us to diverge

Once you then allow for renegotiating all the other deals that we are giving up, we aren't going to see the end of this before the second half of 2030-40. I'm pretty certain that if Johnson gets a majority, I won't still be around to see him or anyone else 'Get Brexit done', and I can't see any turning back once he gets his majority.

The only other way out is with a second referendum, which will not happen if Johnson gets a majority.

I think we'll have to agree that we aren't going to agree on this, so I'll leave you with a

View attachment 117232

And unless you're in a position to splash out 6 figures on one of these (and build the air conditioned garage) for weekends, I don't think you'll benefit under Johnson, JRM and Cummings. Mrs Wz has told me I'm not

Hi Watford,
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Love the E-Type but I have to say, my favourite sporty Jag would probably be a British Racing Green XK140 Drophead Coupe with a lovely Walnut dash. I have coveted one of these ever since I was a young lad and used to see one that belonged to a lady who lived nearby. I used to park up my bike and just gaze in wonder through the window at the fabulous cockpit! No, I won't be splashing out, especially if Mr. Corbyn gets in!
P.S.I am no great fan of Johnson or JRM and especially not Cummings, whom I consider to be almost as distasteful as the odious Seamus Milne on the other side!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And one of the most significant factors in helping get Corbyn to lead a minority government would be an increase in Brexit Party support as the poll numbers for the two added together haven’t changed. Happy campaigning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Brexit party support is falling and they aren't standing against the Tories, there is no way their support will increase at this point. They might still have a negative effect (splitting the leave vote) in a few, tight Tory/Labour marginals though.

 

[kemptown kid]

Absolutely. The problem is not necessarily the policies (not that I agree with the broadband one). It is the fact that they are being presented by Corbyn and McDonnell. Bin them and Labour would walk this election.

As Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband did?

Try to engage with the policies - aimed at launching a major shift of wealth and power in favour of 'the many', countering the Thatcher and beyond widening of inequality since the early 80s - rather than falling for or actively promoting the demonisation of Corbyn. Any Labour leader offering such an agenda would be savaged by the bulk of the press who dutifully serve the vested interests of the privileged and their political representatives such as Johnson and Farage.

We vote for MPs and parties not leaders. Mind you, it's hard to see what Johnson, Gove, Rees Mogg et al have to offer as warm, empathetic, blunder free models of integrity if we are comparing personalities.

 

[ManOfSussex]

The Brexit party support is falling and they aren't standing against the Tories, there is no way their support will increase at this point. They might still have a negative effect (splitting the leave vote) in a few, tight Tory/Labour marginals though.

Aside from antisemitism in the Labour Party, I know you have a very keen interest in everything happening in the Liberal Democrats Party also. I've discovered today that the Lib-Dem candidate for Hastings & Rye will make this election the 8th that he's lost as a candidate and that he also went to Cambridge University. He claims to be northern and into Rugby League, which having once met him I'm surprised at, because he didn't seem the sort of bloke that smoked Regal cigarettes, but my 'Tory Public School numptie metre' is now picking up a signal on him. (Look at Sir Nicholas Clegg - he had loads of people fooled for ages that he wasn't a Public School Tory) If you hear or read anything further on those strange websites that you like to look at, let me know.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

View attachment 117239

Amusingly, the story about Corbyn's madcap plan is linked in the related articles bit of the piece on Boris's bold scheme https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...neral-election-minimum-wage-raise-sajid-javid

For goodness sake, stop blaming the press.

Care to comment on the above, and enlighten us all as to how the press bias is not a thing?

But then again, you thought a Corbynista councillor sending his daughter to Roedean wasn’t hypocritical.....

I think you’d find if you bothered to check, that I said no such thing. I’m fairly certain that my stated opinion was that the special requirements of the child involved were (rightly) not in the public domain, and as such we were not well placed to judge the parents’ decision.

Were you trying to throw in an example of deliberate misrepresentation of someone’s views, in order to illustrate my point!?

 

[BLOCK F]

If you're upset about pensions I dread to think how you would react to the fact privatising water, energy and trains resulted in private debt being unloaded onto the network, the network being assets stripped to death and massive pension shortfalls in the sector.

But the fact you think the party backed by unions , the party kings of workers rights, would be more likely to oversee pension deficits is the most ridicule worthy thing I've read today. Even more so than any nonsense JC has written.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Mikey, My concern for pensions is regarding the effect Labour's war on industry would likely have on the stockmarket and thus on the pension funds invested in the market.
Moving onto Labour's plans for renationalisation, I refer you to an article that appeared in the FT concerning the possible effect on pension funds.In brief, it said 'several in industry warn that pension pots will definitely suffer a shortfall due to Labour plans to nationalise key infrastructure areas. George Bull,senior tax partner at RSM UK says:'because infrastructure investments will constitute part of the fund value for almost every defined benefit and defined contribution pension arrangement, the effect of nationalisation at less than current market value must be considered carefully by a Corbyn Government if chaos is to be avoided.Mr Bull goes on to say that while there may be some advantage for early movers, the general impact would be a reduction in fund values.'
The Global Infrastructure Investor Association says that more than 100 UK pension schemes are invested in infrastructure sectors that would be affected by nationalisation . This represents about 8 million pension pots, mostly from the public sector.The article goes on to say that in the case of DC funds, the reduction in forecast pensions which would follow nationalisation at less than full market value raises the spectre of workers taking industrial action in consequence of change imposed by a Labour government. For employees with DB schemes, shortfalls would arise that would necessitate increased contributions.Finally, Kay Ingram, director of policy at LEBC( financial advisers)says,nationalisation without paying fair market value will result in every saver and pension scheme losing money. That could threaten the solvency of many DB schemes, putting the Pension Protection Fund under pressure.
As a diehard Corbynista, you can call it all the nonsense in the world, but it doesn't change anything. And, by the way, we haven't even started on the proposed 10% share grab that McDonnell proposes.
If you want to read some more, get yourself a copy of Saturday's Times and read an interesting article by Philip Aldrick pointing out what happened to the French economy when Mitterrand imposed his brand of socialism. The author reckons Britain would suffer an even worse fate under Labour!
A fellow like you wouldn't take any notice though, 'cos Corbyn and McDonnell can do no wrong...........It's all the media innit!

 

[Steve Foster]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

 

[lawros left foot]

About polls.
I have been eligible to vote since the 1979 General election. I have never been contacted by any polling company about my voting intentions. I have never met anyone, to my knowledge who has contributed to pre- election polling.
Is there many on this thread that have been asked to contribute?

 

[Hastings gull]

Every time someone trues to improve the world there is always a tosspot like you that says "no. Its too difficult" and puts it down. Thia is why we have ceased to progess and are on a downward spiral.

Instead of the predictable insults, just for once read what others write and be prepared to learn from others' experiences, if they have first-hand knowledge of how life in practice works. The poster was not putting anything down, just pointing out the practical difficulties, which were doubtless very frustrating.

 

[portslade seagull]

Labour came round today told them to go away as not one of them could explain where the extra money is coming from for all these free promises. Still being worked out apparently

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Labour came round today told them to go away as not one of them could explain where the extra money is coming from for all these free promises. Still being worked out apparently

Good for you.

Presumably when the Tory canvassers turn up, you’ll be demanding to know why they’ve delivered zero of the 200,000 new homes they promised to build in 2015, where the 5,000 new GPs have got to that they promised in 2017 and asking to see the as yet unpublished coatings of their 2019 manifesto promises?

 

[Hastings gull]

Good for you.

Presumably when the Tory canvassers turn up, you’ll be demanding to know why they’ve delivered zero of the 200,000 new homes they promised to build in 2015, where the 5,000 new GPs have got to that they promised in 2017 and asking to see the as yet unpublished coatings of their 2019 manifesto promises?

Have I understood you properly? Not one new single home has been built since 2015?

 

[Stat Brother]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) used an expensive accountant to hide his money in an offshore account would not only pay nothing but would also collect £20 each from the first 4 men because they are law abiding tax payers

Now it makes sense.

 

[LANGDON SEAGULL]

Have I understood you properly? Not one new single home has been built since 2015?

Correct


https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...07793/no-homes-built-under-flagship-2015-tory


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Have I understood you properly? Not one new single home has been built since 2015?

These...

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...promised-new-starter-homes-says-watchdog.html

 

[Bakero]

For those of you reciting the 'Tories defend the rich' argument, read this. It's worth it, I assure you.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Well I'm convinced, Massive inequality clearly justified.

(Btw David R. Kamerschen didn't write that allegory)