RugbyRebels

hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

I’ve never got my head around what Corbyn does or doesn’t think about Jewish people. It’s hard to cut through the hysteria and right-wingers pretending they give a shit about racism and actually find out what it is he’s said or done.

It’s interesting seeing the same anti-Milliband content repackaged for Corbyn the anti-Semite though.

I read that his pronunciation of “Epstein” was incredibly anti-Semitic too, so who knows.

I just don’t know enough about Judaism to tell which parts are valid or not. It seems like a lot of the loudest public voices on this subject don’t either.

Banquo wrote:hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

That’s the way the polls are shaping now. Depends on whether you believe the economics in the Labour plan, the ability to execute the policies, and have a belief that nationalisation will work in the UK. I like a lot of the aims in the manifesto, but the means look like a pretty high wire experiment to me, with a lot of unasked and this unanswered questions- for example see my pension fund query of before (and it’s not just ‘people like me’ as you so nicely put it, but tons of private and public sector pension holders); the British Broadband idea seemed poor at the time, and got poorer when Labour doubled the running costs from announcement to manifesto. It’s not an entirely straightforward choice.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:hmm not sure it’s a decision based purely on Leaders and who is less bad. There’s a huge chasm now in the policies which to me seems more important.

In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

That’s the way the polls are shaping now. Depends on whether you believe the economics in the Labour plan, the ability to execute the policies, and have a belief that nationalisation will work in the UK. I like a lot of the aims in the manifesto, but the means look like a pretty high wire experiment to me, with a lot of unasked and this unanswered questions- for example see my pension fund query of before (and it’s not just ‘people like me’ as you so nicely put it, but tons of private and public sector pension holders); the British Broadband idea seemed poor at the time, and got poorer when Labour doubled the running costs from announcement to manifesto. It’s not an entirely straightforward choice.

They’ll need to water some down, British Broadband mainly, but it’s an actual manifesto unlike the Tory one.

And also...

Why are the lib dems so incompetent? They’re just always so damn useless and it’s embarrassing that I’ll be voting for them

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
In which case Labour manifesto surely wins out? The Tory one is literally just Brexit and meh

That’s the way the polls are shaping now. Depends on whether you believe the economics in the Labour plan, the ability to execute the policies, and have a belief that nationalisation will work in the UK. I like a lot of the aims in the manifesto, but the means look like a pretty high wire experiment to me, with a lot of unasked and this unanswered questions- for example see my pension fund query of before (and it’s not just ‘people like me’ as you so nicely put it, but tons of private and public sector pension holders); the British Broadband idea seemed poor at the time, and got poorer when Labour doubled the running costs from announcement to manifesto. It’s not an entirely straightforward choice.

They’ll need to water some down, British Broadband mainly, but it’s an actual manifesto unlike the Tory one.

And also...

Why are the lib dems so incompetent? They’re just always so damn useless and it’s embarrassing that I’ll be voting for them

...that's the very/slightly annoying thing (though I wouldn't call it watering down), but for re-nationalisation (and consequent massive borrowing through bonds and likely massive impact on pension funds (and everything else impacted)) and things like reducing R and D tax relief I'd be thinking about voting for them (there are others, but they would make me sound even more selfish).

Agreed on the Libdems....apparently, they have a manifesto as well.

Some analysis in the Times today suggests that because Corbyn is now being written off (in terms of his ability to form a majority on his own- largely because of a likely kicking by the SNP) there is a chance that more swing voters will vote Labour in other seats, knowing that the SNP and Liberals will be a brake on much of Labours manifesto.

Sandydragon wrote:Some analysis in the Times today suggests that because Corbyn is now being written off (in terms of his ability to form a majority on his own- largely because of a likely kicking by the SNP) there is a chance that more swing voters will vote Labour in other seats, knowing that the SNP and Liberals will be a brake on much of Labours manifesto.

I'd suggest that's The Times trying to ensure potential Tory voters vote...

The forecast is for an easy LD win in my constituency, but I worry...

Yes, a lot of residents would be out of pocket from Brexit, but those same voters would not want a Labour government.

apropos of nothing, shouldn't Labour (and the others tbh) have two scenarios in their manifestos? (leave or remain)

Banquo wrote:apropos of nothing, shouldn't Labour (and the others tbh) have two scenarios in their manifestos? (leave or remain)

Good point.

But the leave one should basically just say...

"We have 1/3rd of the budget to work with, so we we'll only be able to give x nurses, no extra bursary, we'll need to increase corp. tax, we'll need to do x, y, and z, and your lives are going to be terrible because BREXIT WILL BE A DISASTER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Oh, and we'd be forced into a 2nd Scottish Ref., but if there's no Brexit, we can shrug that off. You really think, given the choice of economic prosperity with the EU, or remaining in a suddenly shit UK, the Scots will feel our ties are suddenly close?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:apropos of nothing, shouldn't Labour (and the others tbh) have two scenarios in their manifestos? (leave or remain)

Good point.

But the leave one should basically just say...

"We have 1/3rd of the budget to work with, so we we'll only be able to give x nurses, no extra bursary, we'll need to increase corp. tax, we'll need to do x, y, and z, and your lives are going to be terrible because BREXIT WILL BE A DISASTER FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Oh, and we'd be forced into a 2nd Scottish Ref., but if there's no Brexit, we can shrug that off. You really think, given the choice of economic prosperity with the EU, or remaining in a suddenly shit UK, the Scots will feel our ties are suddenly close?

Yes, and frankly Labour/all need to be honest about that early part and not be sitting on a fence, but that's not about to happen.

Oh Scotland will be off should we leave, sooner or later. Whether that will be good for them , who knows.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Some analysis in the Times today suggests that because Corbyn is now being written off (in terms of his ability to form a majority on his own- largely because of a likely kicking by the SNP) there is a chance that more swing voters will vote Labour in other seats, knowing that the SNP and Liberals will be a brake on much of Labours manifesto.

I'd suggest that's The Times trying to ensure potential Tory voters vote...

The forecast is for an easy LD win in my constituency, but I worry...

Yes, a lot of residents would be out of pocket from Brexit, but those same voters would not want a Labour government.

Of course that’s the motive. But the logic makes a lot of sense.

Entirely seperate from the previous points - this article is a couple of years old; but I've only just come across it - analysing the myth that conservatives are the fiscally responsible, whilst labour are fiscally untrustworthy (analysing stats for public borrowing, and payment of national debt since WWII):
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016 ... -70-years/

The stat for 'Years in Office prior to Global Financial Crash' is a bit harsh and misleading. Labour had been in office for 10 years before that happened, plenty of time to overturn Conservative policies from previous administrations if they were that bad.

Otherwise, I don't disagree that the differences between the parties on financial competence aren't as marked as one might suggest, at least when they have formed governments. Those figures may have been very different if Michael Foot had won a GE, or if Corbyn had won last time round. The Blair and Brown Labour governments worked hard to be fiscally responsible and to be perceived as such. It's one of the reasons why they won such a long term in office. And austerity was never as austere as its critics liked to make out.

Gloves off today....

Sandydragon wrote:The stat for 'Years in Office prior to Global Financial Crash' is a bit harsh and misleading. Labour had been in office for 10 years before that happened, plenty of time to overturn Conservative policies from previous administrations if they were that bad.

Otherwise, I don't disagree that the differences between the parties on financial competence aren't as marked as one might suggest, at least when they have formed governments. Those figures may have been very different if Michael Foot had won a GE, or if Corbyn had won last time round. The Blair and Brown Labour governments worked hard to be fiscally responsible and to be perceived as such. It's one of the reasons why they won such a long term in office. And austerity was never as austere as its critics liked to make out.

Yep. The first couple of terms of New Labour I’d imagine would be closer to this Conservative manifesto than Lab’s with regards borrowing figures. The first two terms of that govt built on the economic foundations of the previous Conservative govt, too. Don’t forget the old adage, Blair was the best PM the Conservatives have ever had. This last Con govt has had to deal with the huge deficit left behind by Brown - nowhere near all his fault - and the austerity we’ve been through is nothing compared to what we would have needed to stop debt rising. I can only imagine the howls, rightly, from the left if Osborne had said he would cut the deficit, and therefore stop the build up of debt, from day one of the new Con govt. As you say, Osborne’s austerity was nowhere near as bad as the manifesto provided and was actually less austere than Darling’s set out in the Lab manifesto. As for the disaster inherited by Thatcher in the 80’s...I won’t go into that.

Long story short. The Conservatives do spend a certain amount of time dealing with deficits and debt inherited from Lab govts.

Sandydragon wrote:The stat for 'Years in Office prior to Global Financial Crash' is a bit harsh and misleading. Labour had been in office for 10 years before that happened, plenty of time to overturn Conservative policies from previous administrations if they were that bad.

Otherwise, I don't disagree that the differences between the parties on financial competence aren't as marked as one might suggest, at least when they have formed governments. Those figures may have been very different if Michael Foot had won a GE, or if Corbyn had won last time round. The Blair and Brown Labour governments worked hard to be fiscally responsible and to be perceived as such. It's one of the reasons why they won such a long term in office. And austerity was never as austere as its critics liked to make out.

The global crash wasn't really a left/right issue. We had Labour in charge here, it was the Republicans in charge in the USA. Everyone missed just how big the bubble was and how quickly the problem would unravel. I'd have some sympathy with the Tories looking to paint Labour in a bad light over the crash if they'd been warning about problems in the finance markets and bringing bills forward to try and avert the problems they foresaw.

Though I'd also think Vs the Labour government under Blair and Brown the current Labour leadership is much more gungho when it comes to borrowing and spending, so judging Corbyn by previous standards is likely misleading. Mind I also think the Tories fiscal policy unsound and dangerous, just not quite as dangerous

Banquo wrote:Gloves off today....

Cunning tactic to get the Conservative 40% to vote Lab and Lab 30% to vote Conservative. Genius.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Gloves off today....

Cunning tactic to get the Conservative 40% to vote Lab and Lab 30% to vote Conservative. Genius.

Do you mean Sturgeon or the US takes over the NHS kerfuffle...

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:Gloves off today....

Cunning tactic to get the Conservative 40% to vote Lab and Lab 30% to vote Conservative. Genius.

Do you mean Sturgeon or the US takes over the NHS kerfuffle...

I predominantly vote Con as I don’t like high levels of borrowing and wouldn’t vote Corbyn for the same reason. Twas a flippant comment that, based on that chart, me and those who think similarly should vote Lab...

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Cunning tactic to get the Conservative 40% to vote Lab and Lab 30% to vote Conservative. Genius.

Do you mean Sturgeon or the US takes over the NHS kerfuffle...

I predominantly vote Con as I don’t like high levels of borrowing and wouldn’t vote Corbyn for the same reason. Twas a flippant comment that, based on that chart, me and those who think similarly should vote Lab...

Oh, my gloves off comment was referring to the Labour press conference, apols.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Do you mean Sturgeon or the US takes over the NHS kerfuffle...

I predominantly vote Con as I don’t like high levels of borrowing and wouldn’t vote Corbyn for the same reason. Twas a flippant comment that, based on that chart, me and those who think similarly should vote Lab...

Oh, my gloves off comment was referring to the Labour press conference, apols.

Feel free to elaborate....

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I predominantly vote Con as I don’t like high levels of borrowing and wouldn’t vote Corbyn for the same reason. Twas a flippant comment that, based on that chart, me and those who think similarly should vote Lab...

Oh, my gloves off comment was referring to the Labour press conference, apols.

Feel free to elaborate....

The damning report into Uk-us trade negotiations.

It doesn’t look good for anyone living in the Uk

From what I’ve read - not ‘Tory’ papers but Guardian and Independent - in 10 mins, the documents show that the US want the NHS to be on the table - just as the UK wanted frictionless trade with the EU without being in the Customs Union - and the papers pre-date Boris’s govt. Nothing new - the US have already said they want the NHS on the table - and no proof a Conservative govt would agree to put the NHS on the table.

If the boot were on the other foot, those on the left would saying this is a storm in the teacup to distract from the fallout of a bad day yesterday.

Mellsblue wrote:From what I’ve read - not ‘Tory’ papers but Guardian and Independent - in 10 mins, the documents show that the US want the NHS to be on the table - just as the UK wanted frictionless trade with the EU without being in the Customs Union - and the papers pre-date Boris’s govt. Nothing new - the US have already said they want the NHS on the table - and no proof a Conservative govt would agree to put the NHS on the table.

If the boot were on the other foot, those on the left would saying this is a storm in the teacup to distract from the fallout of a bad day yesterday.

I’ll wait for an independent, expert review rather than go on the granuaid. My initial look only confirmed my own fears, so isn’t a fair report