[Politics] The General Election Thread

[BensGrandad]

Who has taken the cowards run from Eastleigh to a safer seat. A pattern for that seat. Soames done the same in 1997 when it was nailed on he would lose Crawley.

Didnt she secure an increased majority at the last election? She started as a councillor for Mid Sussex Council so is coming home, which to me is a logical move for her as she was prepared to quit altogether for the sake of her children. Obviously seen as a future prospect by the Tory big wigs.

 

[Two Professors]

So Boris is a bad one cos he's scruffy on parade?.Our absentee MP appeared at our Remembrance in a duffel coat,no poppy,looking like she'd just got up.She caused a ripple of amusement as the Padre hadn't got a clue who she was as he was thanking people for their attendance and help.He even knew that the Outlaws were marshalling the event.The downside of her attending was a massive police presence,and the non-attendance of the usual Mosque party.

 

[Bakero]

So Boris is a bad one cos he's scruffy on parade?.

Corbyn is always getting slammed for being scruffy. He was looking pretty sharp yesterday so instead he's criticised for not sufficiently lowering his head.

 

[shingle]

For maximum effect the Brexit Party shouldn't be standing in the likes of Canterbury, Peterborough and Brecon. These are all nailed on for the conservatives without the distraction of the BP

 

[theonlymikey]

BBC have had to apologise for using three year old footage of BJ at the cenotaph.

BBC are now actively covering up Johnson's gaffes it appears.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[highflyer]

i always wonder what people think will be achieved by nationalisation. it seems largely ideological or based on misconceptions. rail wont be cheaper unless heavily subsidised and tracks were already nationalised; utilities have had large investments over the years that government would have to fund; we'd still have to pay for taxes, levies and higher costs of de-carbonised energy. the focus is made on profits (about 3-5%) going to shareholders, overlooking the main shareholders are our pension funds. im sure there are sensible arguments for some re-nationalisation, they dont get made often.

'Can't be any worse'?

'Might still be a crap service but it would be our crap service'

'Deutsche Bahn' (or alternatively 'Transport for London', or that network that was put into public ownership and did rather well but I can't remember the name of)

As you can tell, I am not all over the detail on this one...I tend to fall back on the basic argument (from Simon Wren Lewis) that when a government can borrow at effectively zero percent interest, to buy an asset that provides a return...the cost doesn't really matter. But the detailed arguments on whether it can provide a better/cheaper service I leave to others.

A quick google says: http://theconversation.com/the-case-for-re-nationalising-britains-railways-45963

On pension funds - I think it's a bit of a myth that these are 'our' pension funds with the implications that we all do better when Branson does better. I don't know what % of shareholders in the rail companies are pension funds but, while I am sure they are significant, a lot of the £ billions paid out will still go straight into the pockets of already (very) rich shareholders.

Then, the majority of benefits that do come from increasing value of pension pots will go to the already wealthy (my understanding is that the majority of funds in private pension pots belong to rich people, not because there are more of them but because their pots are very much bigger). And even the small % of benefits that do go back to people like me (not super wealthy, but with a smallish pension pot which i am desperately trying to increase) are still not reaching those that really need it - most poor people simply don't have private pensions - and overall increasing the value of pensions has the effect of increasing not decreasing inequality.

Cost of transport is a real cost to a lot of people on genuinely low incomes. Reducing that, at the cost of some shareholder returns would be good. And a lot people do say it can reduce - or at least control - costs.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Hopefully that should stop Corbyn, Swinson, and Sturgeon. having any impact and Boris will be able to do what he set out to do before Parliament stopped him by having a reasonable majority in the house.

Boris - having got his majority - then chose to dissolve Parliament himself. Parliament merely objected to the tight timescale for voting on his Withdrawal Agreement. He could have kept it going, given Parliament the time they were requesting, then had the vote, won it and then Brexited on / before 31 Jan 20.

 

[Steve.S]

Boris - having got his majority - then chose to dissolve Parliament himself. Parliament merely objected to the tight timescale for voting on his Withdrawal Agreement. He could have kept it going, given Parliament the time they were requesting, then had the vote, won it and then Brexited on / before 31 Jan 20.

He wouldn’t have got his deal through, amendments would have been added changing his deal. Brexit would have been watered down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Pavilionaire]

He wouldn’t have got his deal through, amendments would have been added changing his deal. Brexit would have been watered down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

We don't know what would have happened, but one thing we do know is there would have been 'a' Brexit if this Parliament had gone full term until 2022.

If Brexit doesn't happen then that will be down to one man - Boris Johnson.

 

[Steve.S]

We don't know what would have happened, but one thing we do know is there would have been 'a' Brexit if this Parliament had gone full term until 2022.

If Brexit doesn't happen then that will be down to one man - Boris Johnson.

We do know that, labour MPs who supported it wanted to add amendments such as a customs union. Do you honestly think that labour, Lib Dem’s, SNP and all the others would let his deal pass through un-amended? His deal would have passed like you say, however he would have been a softer Brexit, and the Tory party would have taken the blame at the general election that followed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bob!]

Labour do seem remarkably proficient at putting people up for media duties who seem ridiculously ill-prepared and/or just not very good. I'm not suggesting the Tories don't do the same, but Labour seem to do it a LOT.

In stark contrast I heard Grant Schapps on 5Live whilst out walking the dog yesterday morning and he was very polished indeed. Slippery as a fish, obviously, but very accomplished.

You've managed to miss Matt Hancock then?

 

[CHAPPERS]

We do know that, labour MPs who supported it wanted to add amendments such as a customs union. Do you honestly think that labour, Lib Dem’s, SNP and all the others would let his deal pass through un-amended? His deal would have passed like you say, however he would have been a softer Brexit, and the Tory party would have taken the blame at the general election that followed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So what you’re saying is that Brexit isn’t Brexit unless Boris says it is.

 

[Steve.S]

So what you’re saying is that Brexit isn’t Brexit unless Boris says it is.

I think I maybe wrong but please feel free to correct me. I think I gave an opinion as to why Boris pulled his deal and went for a general election. Again I don’t recall saying that Boris’s way is Brexit. I have no idea what Brexit is meant to look like, I myself would be happy to remain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Hopefully that should stop Corbyn, Swinson, and Sturgeon. having any impact and Boris will be able to do what he set out to do before Parliament stopped him by having a reasonable majority in the house.

The Tories HAD a majority.

May haemorrhaged it by calling an unnecessary election, because she was complacent.

Johnson compounded the problem, by expelling 21 of his own MPs, for doing what he himself has done many, many times previously.

But it has all been done 'to them' in your eyes. Utterly clueless.

 

[beorhthelm]

As you can tell, I am not all over the detail on this one...I tend to fall back on the basic argument (from Simon Wren Lewis) that when a government can borrow at effectively zero percent interest, to buy an asset that provides a return...the cost doesn't really matter. But the detailed arguments on whether it can provide a better/cheaper service I leave to others.

A quick google says: http://theconversation.com/the-case-for-re-nationalising-britains-railways-45963

its not a good argument as it overlooks the capital will need to be repaid at the end of the borrowing period. that article is good telling us how much we use the rail, problems with the current model, but doesn't really explain why public ownership benefits over private, aside £200m to shareholders (subcontractors is a dubious saving, assumes this is inefficient, at higher cost than in house). the article even draws attention to increase of debt or National Rail, and comments that by borrowing through the treasury is can do so "slightly cheaper". im not in favour of the current model for rail, i equally cant see good reason to privatise the rail (or water) as they are natural monopoly, and heavily regulated anyway. im focusing on what the benefits of borrowing money to have it run from central government are.

 

[BensGrandad]

Boris - having got his majority - then chose to dissolve Parliament himself. Parliament merely objected to the tight timescale for voting on his Withdrawal Agreement. He could have kept it going, given Parliament the time they were requesting, then had the vote, won it and then Brexited on / before 31 Jan 20.

After having been stopped sorting out our exit with the ridiculous Benn Bill.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

You've managed to miss Matt Hancock then?

Or James Cleverly

 

[theonlymikey]

Farage’s big move ‘will make little difference’, says YouGov expert

Chris Curtis, YouGov’s political research manager, has poured cold water on suggestions Nigel Farage has swun the election for Boris Johnson and the Tories.

In a blog post titled ‘Farage’s election stand-down will make little difference’, he points out that the Brexit Party was already trending downwards in the polls.

“The most important swing to look at in the polls is the one between Labour and the Conservatives. Despite a move away from two-party politics since the last election, it is still the case that most marginal seats are battles between Labour and the Conservatives, and this is the most important dynamic in deciding who will be celebrating Christmas in 10 Downing Street.”

He concludes: “So overall, despite today’s drama, this is unlikely to be a game-changing moment.”

 

[highflyer]

You've managed to miss Matt Hancock then?

Probably a 'bubble' thing. All i ever seem to see is Kwarteng, Rees Mogg, Cleverly, Hancock or Johnson, himself making utter tits of themselves.

But of course I'm biased. And also inclined to think that the Labour Brexit position is pretty clear (negotiate a new, softer, deal that meets the Labour red lines and put it back to a referendum, against remain, within six months) and any journalist pretending that it's 'all so confusing' is either a bit dim or (mostly) trying to stir it up.

Maybe [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] didn't realise the Kier Starmer video had been doctored by the Tories (and now it seems the BBC are doing the job for them)?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

its not a good argument as it overlooks the capital will need to be repaid at the end of the borrowing period. that article is good telling us how much we use the rail, problems with the current model, but doesn't really explain why public ownership benefits over private, aside £200m to shareholders (subcontractors is a dubious saving, assumes this is inefficient, at higher cost than in house). the article even draws attention to increase of debt or National Rail, and comments that by borrowing through the treasury is can do so "slightly cheaper". im not in favour of the current model for rail, i equally cant see good reason to privatise the rail (or water) as they are natural monopoly, and heavily regulated anyway. im focusing on what the benefits of borrowing money to have it run from central government are.

The argument for privatising was always that private ventures could run services more efficiently than public. As that's been proven to be shite, we should bring them back to public ownership.