Off Topic General Election

EdHorn said:
The Tories won and Labour lost - that is a simple fact. In number of votes and in MPs elected.
But the Tories must feel like they lost and Labour that they won - a paradox.
If neither party learns from the election though things are not likely to change much from here.
The Tories need to try to find a leader who actually understands what it is like to be an ordinary person rather than just saying they do. They also need to try to come up with some real decent policies. In this election they managed to annoy just about everyone - not least people who had been prepared to vote for them.
Labour need to understand that people like to be bribed and will vote for their own self interest but that people also need to believe that they can deliver. The Tories totally failed to hit at the credibility of Labour's giveaway promises. They ignored economics because TM cannot stand Philip Hammond and kept him in a cupboard. That would not happen again. If I were a Tory in this election I would have pointed out that JC would again bankrupt the UK and that this time it would need even more years of austerity to follow - I wonder how many people would vote for another 10 years of real government cuts.
What I fail to understand is why the LibDems failed to propose strong centrist policies which allied to their anti brexit stance should have given them far more votes. Instead Farron spent the entire election sniping at TM. When will politicians learn that the public prefer positive visions to fear and hate.
Click to expand...

The Lib Dems went wrong because they completely focussed on being the anti Brexit party. The vast majority of electors either voted for Brexit or wish the process to start a.s.a.p. Farron also fails to inspire, he comes over more as a scout leader than a leader of a UK political party.
 
EdHorn said:
The Tories won and Labour lost - that is a simple fact. In number of votes and in MPs elected.
But the Tories must feel like they lost and Labour that they won - a paradox.
If neither party learns from the election though things are not likely to change much from here.
The Tories need to try to find a leader who actually understands what it is like to be an ordinary person rather than just saying they do. They also need to try to come up with some real decent policies. In this election they managed to annoy just about everyone - not least people who had been prepared to vote for them.
Labour need to understand that people like to be bribed and will vote for their own self interest but that people also need to believe that they can deliver. The Tories totally failed to hit at the credibility of Labour's giveaway promises. They ignored economics because TM cannot stand Philip Hammond and kept him in a cupboard. That would not happen again. If I were a Tory in this election I would have pointed out that JC would again bankrupt the UK and that this time it would need even more years of austerity to follow - I wonder how many people would vote for another 10 years of real government cuts.
What I fail to understand is why the LibDems failed to propose strong centrist policies which allied to their anti brexit stance should have given them far more votes. Instead Farron spent the entire election sniping at TM. When will politicians learn that the public prefer positive visions to fear and hate.
Click to expand...
The Tories lost Ed. They lost because they failed to achieve the goal which they set for an election which they called - the only justification given for loading another election (and the costs of it) on an already election weary population was to strengthen May's hand for the forthcoming EU. negotiations. She had already said that the loss of 6 seats in that scenario would be a defeat - she actually lost over double that.
 
colognehornet said:
The Tories lost Ed. They lost because they failed to achieve the goal which they set for an election which they called - the only justification given for loading another election (and the costs of it) on an already election weary population was to strengthen May's hand for the forthcoming EU. negotiations. She had already said that the loss of 6 seats in that scenario would be a defeat - she actually lost over double that.
Click to expand...
No the Tories failed - they did not lose. Semantics but sometimes it is necessary. They won the election in terms of the number of votes and MPs where they gained most.
They failed because they did not achieve their objective.
In 2010 a similar result for the Tories was hailed as a great success.
 
EdHorn said:
No the Tories failed - they did not lose. Semantics but sometimes it is necessary. They won the election in terms of the number of votes and MPs where they gained most.
They failed because they did not achieve their objective.
In 2010 a similar result for the Tories was hailed as a great success.
Click to expand...

The UK socialists are grateful for any crumbs of comfort. The expectations on the performance of the divided Labour Party were so low than anything better than annihilation has been considered 'victorious'.
 
canary-dave said:
That would suggest that he's done it before which is not true, the global financial crash was not caused by the Labour Party, in fact it was Gordon Brown's intervention which saved it from being much worse!

Edit:- I highlighted this which didn't show up in post:-

I would have pointed out that JC would again bankrupt the UK and that this time it would need even more years of austerity to follow
Click to expand...
That is indeed the Labour lie.
The truth is that there was a global financial crisis. In the UK the position the government put the country in made it far worse than it needed to have been and far worse than many other countries. Under Blair Labour pledged to follow Tory economics - and it worked; but Brown was old Labour and when he got control he reverted to Labour "type" UK debt was very stable to 2006 but began to rise as soon as Brown took over and before the global crisis overwhelmed the UK
However it is impossible to "prove" either the Labour or the alternative view.
The reality is that no Labour government has ever left power without having had a financial and economic crisis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: superhorns
EdHorn said:
That is indeed the Labour lie.
The truth is that there was a global financial crisis. In the UK the position the government put the country in made it far worse than it needed to have been and far worse than many other countries. Under Blair Labour pledged to follow Tory economics - and it worked; but Brown was old Labour and when he got control he reverted to Labour "type" UK debt was very stable to 2006 but began to rise as soon as Brown took over and before the global crisis overwhelmed the UK
However it is impossible to "prove" either the Labour or the alternative view.
The reality is that no Labour government has ever left power without having had a financial and economic crisis.
Click to expand...

Do Labour chancellors have a 'no money left' note they pass down ?
 
colognehornet said:
Ed. It has been stated here many times, and proved by many economists, that the idea that Tories are better for the economy is a myth. It is also a fact that if you compare the records of Tory and Labour years in office, since 1945, the Tories have spent more (per year in office) and also borrowed more, and repaid less than Labour has. It is the Tories who will eventually bankrupt Britain by a) the legal costs of Brexit and b) endangering our relationship to our best partners and customers. It is they who are pedalling the dangerous illusion that there can be such a thing as a successfull Brexit - because no deal, of any sort, can be better than the one we have already.
Click to expand...
I know it has been stated on here many times - but that does not make it correct.
It certainly has not been "proved" by many economists. Labour economists have used statistics to try to prove it - that is all.
Overall the Tories have always taken over from a Labour government that has ended in economic failure. it is the Tories that have always had to "mend" the economy and they usually do.
Over time government has got bigger and its responsibilities have become greater so it is inevitable that spending will naturally increase. However take the last 7 years. Labour have said the Tories have presided over a massive increase in the debt. They have. However each year they have reduced the amount of borrowing - that is why we have all suffered and is why austerity hurts. Had it not been reduced and stayed at the level of £150b as it was in Labour's last year then it would now be about 2.4 trillion - several hundred billions higher than it is. To lay the blame for this on the Tories is amusing. With austerity the annual debt has reduced to £50b from £150b - and naturally that has hurt (about £43b is interest on the debt). Without austerity the debt would have stayed at £150b annually and would now be well over £2 trillion. You cannot have both. So people have to decide which they wanted.
 
EdHorn said:
I know it has been stated on here many times - but that does not make it correct.
It certainly has not been "proved" by many economists. Labour economists have used statistics to try to prove it - that is all.
Overall the Tories have always taken over from a Labour government that has ended in economic failure. it is the Tories that have always had to "mend" the economy and they usually do.
Over time government has got bigger and its responsibilities have become greater so it is inevitable that spending will naturally increase. However take the last 7 years. Labour have said the Tories have presided over a massive increase in the debt. They have. However each year they have reduced the amount of borrowing - that is why we have all suffered and is why austerity hurts. Had it not been reduced and stayed at the level of £150b as it was in Labour's last year then it would now be about 2.4 trillion - several hundred billions higher than it is. To lay the blame for this on the Tories is amusing. With austerity the annual debt has reduced to £50b from £150b - and naturally that has hurt (about £43b is interest on the debt). Without austerity the debt would have stayed at £150b annually and would now be well over £2 trillion. You cannot have both. So people have to decide which they wanted.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of simple economics that should be used to educate the starry eyed young who believe in Corbyn's imaginary money tree.
 
The problem for the UK is that taxation is too low to pay for what people want and need.
Until people are prepared to pay more in taxes they cannot have everything they want. That means basic income tax too. It is a myth that much more will be gained by squeezing the rich - although I happen to think a 50% tax on incomes over £80k is fair. It is not enough.
Corporation tax take would not increase if we went back to a 26% rate. What would happen is that companies would seek to offset the increase and part of that would be lower wages and less employment. Personally I believe the current rate is low enough though and do not agree with lowering it further.
In fact although the Tories made a huge hash of it they were not far wrong on Social Care. It needs to be addressed.
I would add another tax - like National Insurance but called Social and Welfare Insurance. I would levy it on employees and employers - it would be ring fenced for spend on social care. It would be like a pension or life insurance premium. We would all pay into it during our lifetime and like a pension it would be there to pay for care for people who needed it due to age, health or disability. It is not right to leave the cost to people who become in need of it as the costs are massive - but if we all helped build up the pot to take from later in life it would be affordable.
 
EdHorn said:
I know it has been stated on here many times - but that does not make it correct.
It certainly has not been "proved" by many economists. Labour economists have used statistics to try to prove it - that is all.
Overall the Tories have always taken over from a Labour government that has ended in economic failure. it is the Tories that have always had to "mend" the economy and they usually do.
Over time government has got bigger and its responsibilities have become greater so it is inevitable that spending will naturally increase. However take the last 7 years. Labour have said the Tories have presided over a massive increase in the debt. They have. However each year they have reduced the amount of borrowing - that is why we have all suffered and is why austerity hurts. Had it not been reduced and stayed at the level of £150b as it was in Labour's last year then it would now be about 2.4 trillion - several hundred billions higher than it is. To lay the blame for this on the Tories is amusing. With austerity the annual debt has reduced to £50b from £150b - and naturally that has hurt (about £43b is interest on the debt). Without austerity the debt would have stayed at £150b annually and would now be well over £2 trillion. You cannot have both. So people have to decide which they wanted.
Click to expand...
Not Labour economists Ed. These are 2 quotes from an IMF study:
''The increase in inequality engendered by financial openness and austerity might itself undercut growth, the very thing that the neoliberal agenda is intent on boosting. There is strong evidence that inequality can significantly lower both the level and durability of growth''
''It's time for the chancellor (In this case Osborne) to listen to the experts, change course and put an end to his failed policy of austerity with a solid commitment by government to deliver an industrial strategy backed up by patient investment to create the high tech, high-wage economy of the future''.
This study from the IMF economists is not unique - most modern economists now agree that the neoliberalism of the Hayek school is discredited, and refer back to a more Keynesian model which stressed the importance of sustainable growth only being based upon the increase of spending power by consumers.
 
EdHorn said:
I would add another tax - like National Insurance but called Social and Welfare Insurance. I would levy it on employees and employers - it would be ring fenced for spend on social care. It would be like a pension or life insurance premium. We would all pay into it during our lifetime and like a pension it would be there to pay for care for people who needed it due to age, health or disability. It is not right to leave the cost to people who become in need of it as the costs are massive - but if we all helped build up the pot to take from later in life it would be affordable.
Click to expand...

<ok>

Well you could increase NI or add a % on income tax like the LibDems proposed a penny in the £.. etc

I have no issue with that myself.....
 
May's two ill advised advisers have resigned after senior Tories demanded they be sacked or she would have faced a leadership challenge on Monday. They don't mess about these Tories, it just shows how badly the dithering and failed Labour leadership crisis was handled.
 
superhorns said:
Corbyn has been walking around smirking like a cat, somebody needs to remind him he actually lost and was well behind the Tories in votes and seats. The expectation was so bad that a heavy defeat is seen as a victory. The Labour Party has fallen that low.
Click to expand...
About 2% behind in votes resulting in, what, 50 less seats. That says more about the injustice of our electoral system than it does about Corbyn and the Labour Party performance.
Bearing in mind the influence of the non-Dom right wing press and a distinct lack of political non-bias from t.v. I think it has been a remarkable achievement by such a pilloried an left wing candidate and manifesto.
 
Hornet-Fez said:
About 2% behind in votes resulting in, what, 50 less seats. That says more about the injustice of our electoral system than it does about Corbyn and the Labour Party performance.
Bearing in mind the influence of the non-Dom right wing press and a distinct lack of political non-bias from t.v. I think it has been a remarkable achievement by such a pilloried an left wing candidate and manifesto.
Click to expand...

The only current injustice is that Labour have electoral boundaries in their favour, this anomaly will hopefully be correct very soon. I'm pleased a third Labour defeat in a row is being described as remarkable.
 
Many uncouth Scots booing God Save the Queen, you would have thought they would be grateful for the lorry loads of cash the English send up there annually. :emoticon-0116-evilg
 
superhorns said:
The only current injustice is that Labour have electoral boundaries in their favour, this anomaly will hopefully be correct very soon. I'm pleased a third Labour defeat in a row is being described as remarkable.
Click to expand...
<doh>
Like so many others, I'm not going to bother. Suffice to say that when a 2% majority results in 50 more seats I think it's abundantly clear which party benefits from the current boundaries. Further gerrymandering is patently not required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: canary-dave
May will face backbench 1922 committee at 5pm tomorrow. Senior Tory tells me: "she needs to give a barnstorming performance to survive".

This meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, so she is under real pressure now from her backbenchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back