General Election 2017

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

1 hour ago, mockingbird_franklin said:

Tony is correct, yes they may have been influenced to see property as a way to make a fast buck, but the majority of the problem comes from deregulation of the banking sector and both the red and blue tory party are to blame for that. wasn't it mervin king who said we have the worst possible banking system, and that banking system had many of the checks and balances removed.

 

Apart from the obvious issues caused by the financial crash, feel free to elaborate as banking is not my specialty! 

[tonyh29]

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Can we change the slogan to 'it isn't happening' yet?

A man that desperately needs mass media exposure to get his point across is going to turn it down because...?

Fool.

I'd argue the QT TV interview in 2015  cost Ed the election ( coalition rather than outright)  .. obviously not the only reason , but I think they were harmful to him , heck he even managed to trip over leaving the stage , but his refusal to accept some blame for the economic mess (his party rather than him personally , we all know it was Browns fault  ) definitely damaged him ( there were almost gasps from the audience as I recall )

Ok , Corbyn is in a slightly different situation is he isn't look to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory  , but it might be playing on his advisors mind ... lets face it you can almost see the plants in the audience asking about Trident ,Brexit and the National Anthem

 

even the I agree with Nick surge didn't transfer into votes ...

 

so maybe the wins of a debate don't outweigh the losses ?

Edited April 26, 2017 by tonyh29

[Chindie]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd argue the QT TV interview in 2015  cost Ed the election ( coalition rather than outright)  .. obviously not the only reason , but I think they were harmful to him , heck he even managed to trip over leaving the stage , but his refusal to accept some blame for the economic mess (his party rather than him personally , we all know it was Browns fault  ) definitely damaged him ( there were almost gasps from the audience as I recall )

Ok , Corbyn is in a slightly different situation is he isn't look to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory  , but it might be playing on his advisors mind ... lets face it you can almost see the plants in the audience asking about Trident ,Brexit and the National Anthem

 

even the I agree with Nick surge didn't transfer into votes ...

 

so maybe the wins of a debate don't outweigh the losses ?

I'd agree, although he'd have the same issues if May did agree and they debated.

But he's going to lose anyway. Unless they're completely in denial about the polls. This just means he's lost a chance to fight in front of the masses, and lost a simple win to throw at May. He can point to her absence. Now he can't.

I'll await the hamfisted spin how it's great though.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd argue the QT TV interview in 2015  cost Ed the election ( coalition rather than outright)  .. obviously not the only reason , but I think they were harmful to him , heck he even managed to trip over leaving the stage , but his refusal to accept some blame for the economic mess (his party rather than him personally , we all know it was Browns fault  ) definitely damaged him ( there were almost gasps from the audience as I recall )

Ok , Corbyn is in a slightly different situation is he isn't look to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory  , but it might be playing on his advisors mind ... lets face it you can almost see the plants in the audience asking about Trident ,Brexit and the National Anthem

even the I agree with Nick surge didn't transfer into votes ...so maybe the wins of a debate don't outweigh the losses ?

There were a whole bunch of reasons Labour lost in 2015, so taking your comment, I'd say that in the build up al lthe press stuff with the bacon and all that - his trip just confirmed what had already been applied as a label to him by the Tory media moguls - that he was a bit gawky and stumbly.

Ditto the financial stuff. The tories and their media mates had managed (falsely) to pin the world financial crisis on labour, by the repeating a single message at every oportunity trick. It was completely untrue, but Labour didn't counter it and it became to be seen as the accepted verdict. Hence the gasps.

However, Labour's vote went up didn't it?  but just not by enough. It was the SNP rout in Scotland and the LibDem collapse that gave it to the tories. Labour sort of bumbled it all a bit, rather than dynamically grabbing the initiative.

As for now, they're doing, as far as I can tell, an even more lacklustre effort. The tories too are (IMO) doing worse in terms of their campaigning - it's so completely binary and contemptuous that there's a chance it could all bite them on the a**e. I hope it does, but fear that people will just fall for the lies in the absence of anything looking credible or hopeful as an alternative.

TV debates could help opposition parties look like a shiny new solution. They couldn't help May as she's worse than Corbyn in terms of "performing" to real people, as opposed to staged groups of supporters.

[Risso]

Gordon Brown apologised for Labour's part in the financial crisis, so it'd be a bit surprising if their political opponents didn't mention it every now and again.  

[Risso]

36 minutes ago, blandy said:

There were a whole bunch of reasons Labour lost in 2015, so taking your comment, I'd say that in the build up al lthe press stuff with the bacon and all that - his trip just confirmed what had already been applied as a label to him by the Tory media moguls - that he was a bit gawky and stumbly.

Ditto the financial stuff. The tories and their media mates had managed (falsely) to pin the world financial crisis on labour, by the repeating a single message at every oportunity trick. It was completely untrue, but Labour didn't counter it and it became to be seen as the accepted verdict. Hence the gasps.

However, Labour's vote went up didn't it?  but just not by enough. It was the SNP rout in Scotland and the LibDem collapse that gave it to the tories. Labour sort of bumbled it all a bit, rather than dynamically grabbing the initiative.

As for now, they're doing, as far as I can tell, an even more lacklustre effort. The tories too are (IMO) doing worse in terms of their campaigning - it's so completely binary and contemptuous that there's a chance it could all bite them on the a**e. I hope it does, but fear that people will just fall for the lies in the absence of anything looking credible or hopeful as an alternative.

TV debates could help opposition parties look like a shiny new solution. They couldn't help May as she's worse than Corbyn in terms of "performing" to real people, as opposed to staged groups of supporters.

Worse than Corbyn?  Come now, she might not be Churchill, but worse than Corbyn?  I'm not sure that such a politician exists.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

his refusal to accept some blame for the economic mess (his party rather than him personally , we all know it was Browns fault  ) definitely damaged him ( there were almost gasps from the audience as I recall )

Your recall seems to be rather skewed.

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, Risso said:

Worse than Corbyn?  Come now, she might not be Churchill, but worse than Corbyn?  I'm not sure that such a politician exists.

IN terms of relating to people in a face to face way, and in terms of showing humanity and empathy and all that kind of stuff. She comes across as a hollow, sinister, mechanoid.

Corbyn comes across as a sort of kindly geography teacher, who's perhaps got a bit lost on his way to the bowls club  - as a human, albeit one who is incompetent.

[sharkyvilla]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

IN terms of relating to people in a face to face way, and in terms of showing humanity and empathy and all that kind of stuff. She comes across as a hollow, sinister, mechanoid.

Corbyn comes across as a sort of kindly geography teacher, who's perhaps got a bit lost on his way to the bowls club  - as a human, albeit one who is incompetent.

I don't know about anyone else but Corbyn comes across as quite an impatient, prickly character in interviews with little time for trying to engage with those who don't agree with him.  

[bobzy]

54 minutes ago, Risso said:

Worse than Corbyn?  Come now, she might not be Churchill, but worse than Corbyn?  I'm not sure that such a politician exists.

I have honestly missed what it is that Jeremy Corbyn has done that is so horrific.  I cannot fathom the hatred for the guy at all.

[dAVe80]

15 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I don't know about anyone else but Corbyn comes across as quite an impatient, prickly character in interviews with little time for trying to engage with those who don't agree with him.  

Having seen him speak on a couple of occasions, and met him, I don't get that from him at all. He took the time to stop and talk to everyone that wanted to speak to him, the last time I saw him, and was fantastic with my mate, who has been battling with the DWP as his disability benefit was stopped. He took the time to give him advice about his tribunal, and was generally a thoroughly decent bloke.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Okay, I'll give you a few reasons that aren't wrapped in convenient stats. (eg- levels of employment which are skewed by temp work and zero hours contracts)

T-Levels - About bloody time. Apprenticeships are vital and thank god they have been a focus so we could progress to T-Levels. Concentrating exclusively on pre-16 is wrong.
Fairer Funding in Schools - Suddenly Labour are vehemently against it on the grounds they would spend more....not deliver more! Many teachers also support the policy.

Good post and nice to read some actual views on things - although the Conservatives are massively **** up the education system, rather than doing good things.

"T-Levels" are a positive step, though.  It will be interesting to see how they are taken to given the increase in hours and teaching demand.  Vocational courses previously have been a bit of a laughing stock - including by those who have taken them as an "easy route".  My gut feeling is that they'll be used as a post-Brexit plan to "get back to the good old days", but we'll see.

The fair funding situation sounds like an absolute farce - mainly because there's not an increase in funding, but a re-distribution of it.  On the face of things "fair enough", you might think.  The funding model needed re-developing and there's now a clear recognition that parts of the country were previously unfairly treated.  How can you suddenly just cut a schools' funding, though?  There's no increase in spending (I'm pretty sure the NAO warned of real term cuts, in fact) so you're taking away funding from some "over-funded" schools and passing it on elsewhere.  You're simply moving the problems around rather than increasing funding and addressing the situation.

That's not taking into consideration the failing Free School system and botched Academy conversions that the Conservatives have imposed.  The Free School costs in particular are hugely alarming and would have been far better invested in the woefully short-funded education system we have rather than creating a whole load of new schools to meet additional spaces targets (which also receive more real funding, for the lols).  Many of them are completely unnecessary, too.

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

And Corbyn isn't going to take part in the TV debates if May doesn't...What?!

May is probably pissing herself as she hears that news. 

What a absolute fool. That is his chance to demonstrate why he is good and may is not

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

geography teacher, who's perhaps got a bit lost

Very good. 

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Having seen him speak on a couple of occasions, and met him, I don't get that from him at all

Presumably that was at Corbyn supporter events, was it? Not so much of people who don't agree with him at those kind of events. I think the comment about "an impatient, prickly character in interviews with little time for trying to engage with those who don't agree with him." rings true to me, from interviews. All politicians pretty much share that trait or alternatively an oily evasive nature in those circs - we have to remember that they're mostly humanoid life forms, so allowance for prickliness should be given, mind.  

[sharkyvilla]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Presumably that was at Corbyn supporter events, was it? Not so much of people who don't agree with him at those kind of events. I think the comment about "an impatient, prickly character in interviews with little time for trying to engage with those who don't agree with him." rings true to me, from interviews. All politicians pretty much share that trait or alternatively an oily evasive nature in those circs - we have to remember that they're mostly humanoid life forms, so allowance for prickliness should be given, mind.  

Indeed, I was about to write something similar but you got there first.  I can really see the appeal to those he appeals to, but while that's enough to keep getting re-elected as Labour leader you can't take the next step on that alone.  It's why I think Clive Lewis would be perfect to take over, he is left-wing enough, actually voted against passing Article 50 and against a General Election plus media savvy enough to get it across to people whose votes are up for grabs.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Your recall seems to be rather skewed.

or not as the case may be ..

 

Instead, when an audience member asked him: “Do you accept that when Labour was last in power, it overspent?”, Miliband began his answer, “No, I don’t,” to gasps from members of the audience. The next day, Miliband was ripped apart in the media, which added to the sense that his campaign was losing its discipline.

 

(I'm assuming you weren't picking holes in the Brown line which was clearly not serious )

[Jon]

9 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Clive Lewis

He's the man. Just such a shame we're going to be landed with 5 more years of May before he'll get  a GE chance.  

[dAVe80]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

Presumably that was at Corbyn supporter events, was it? Not so much of people who don't agree with him at those kind of events. I think the comment about "an impatient, prickly character in interviews with little time for trying to engage with those who don't agree with him." rings true to me, from interviews. All politicians pretty much share that trait or alternatively an oily evasive nature in those circs - we have to remember that they're mostly humanoid life forms, so allowance for prickliness should be given, mind.  

I saw him speak at the Durham Miner's Gala, and the even where I met him, and he spoke to my mate, was the launch of the mayor for Tees Valley. I concede he has a lot of support in the room, but that doesn't change my view of him. You have the view you have of him, and that's fine. I know how you feel about him, and I fully respect that. I'm just saying how I see it. I'd say the time I've seen him lose his patience, or get prickly, is if he's getting asked loaded questions, or being damn right disrespected by journalists. Even then, I'd say he still manages not to be rude to his interviewees. That's my opinion though, and I can only speak from what I've seen of him.

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

There were a whole bunch of reasons Labour lost in 2015, so taking your comment, I'd say that in the build up al lthe press stuff with the bacon and all that - his trip just confirmed what had already been applied as a label to him by the Tory media moguls - that he was a bit gawky and stumbly.

Ditto the financial stuff. The tories and their media mates had managed (falsely) to pin the world financial crisis on labour, by the repeating a single message at every oportunity trick. It was completely untrue, but Labour didn't counter it and it became to be seen as the accepted verdict. Hence the gasps.

However, Labour's vote went up didn't it?  but just not by enough. It was the SNP rout in Scotland and the LibDem collapse that gave it to the tories. Labour sort of bumbled it all a bit, rather than dynamically grabbing the initiative.

As for now, they're doing, as far as I can tell, an even more lacklustre effort. The tories too are (IMO) doing worse in terms of their campaigning - it's so completely binary and contemptuous that there's a chance it could all bite them on the a**e. I hope it does, but fear that people will just fall for the lies in the absence of anything looking credible or hopeful as an alternative.

TV debates could help opposition parties look like a shiny new solution. They couldn't help May as she's worse than Corbyn in terms of "performing" to real people, as opposed to staged groups of supporters.

I acknowledged there were other factors   , I said I thought it played a huge part , hence why I could see Corbyn ( and May for that matter) not wanting to go down that route

the financial bit I wasn't arguing whose fault it was , more the impact of that loaded question and Ed's response to it  ...

 

 

the article I just linked to in a reply to snowy covers a lot of it but I'll link to it again here as it's actually quite a good article , surprisingly for the Guardian,

Instead, when an audience member asked him: “Do you accept that when Labour was last in power, it overspent?”, Miliband began his answer, “No, I don’t,” to gasps from members of the audience. The next day, Miliband was ripped apart in the media, which added to the sense that his campaign was losing its discipline

 

the article shows that right up until the Exit Poll on election day  , they were expecting Ed to be PM , even if the Tories won the most seats ( other than a majority , which didn't seem to have even been considered  a remote possibility !)

At 9.55pm on election night, in Labour party headquarters at Brewers Green in Westminster, the party felt that it had charted a clear, if perilous, path to power. The battle that night would be whether the Liberal Democrats would choose to partner with Labour or the Conservatives.