The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[Wainy316]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'm not thrilled about the Tories either, but at least there'll still be a country in five years.

I dread to think how much more irreversible damage they will do to our society with another 5 years.

[lapal_fan]

22 minutes ago, welnik said:

Apart from certain bancrutpcy under Labour of course! But at least then we'll all be equally poor! Food banks here we come 

Your posts in this topic over the last few hours/day don't really add anything really.

Why do you think we'll be bankrupt?  What evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) do you have to support this? 

I'm not even being a smart arse, I'd like to cover all the bases before I go and tick a box in 3 weeks. 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Labour introduced the policy  in 1995

Did they?

[Rodders]

the labour manifesto is perfectly comparable to other european countries, where there isn't a spaz out about bankruptcy. Not saying all the plans are beyond reproach, but the bankrupt britain motif that the right wing rags fly about is grounded in horse-shit. 

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'd rather take a risk with extra spending so we will still have a health service in a few years time.

Caveat that we don't know what will happen on Dec 12th, but, assuming the Tories get a working majority.. The tweet you quoted from Goodwin lays out why I don't think they will mess with NHS funding. The voters they need to remain in power are mostly found in provincial working class areas. They've lost a bucket of middle class support over leaving the EU, so they need to cement the coalition of voters they have now. That means higher public spending, a focus on public services and infrastructure investment beyond the south-east and home counties.

If they don't then Johnson is a one-term PM, and no-one gets that more than Cummings (see below - it's less than 2 mins!). If he gets the boot after the election and the Cameron-type (China loving, civil-liberty hating, austerity chugging) wing of their party regain control then they are finished. We'll see. 

 

[tonyh29]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Did they?

good point , 95 was still John Major wasn't it ..had it in my head Blair was PM by then

 

 

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I genuinely don't understand the Corbyn is a Marxist/anti-semite thing.

What has he done (or the labour party in that respect)?

It's not a good look to me (uninformed).

Tbf, there are a lot of people in and around the Corbyn inner circle (and beyond) who have, at one time or another and maybe very recently or still, described themselves as 'Marxist'.

It is, however, a term that can cover a panoply of political opinion and thought and its use is largely pejorative. It's the next term on the rank after socialist.

[snowychap]

32 minutes ago, Awol said:

at least there'll still be a country in five years.

You mean England rather than the UK?

Okay, it may take them a decade rather than just five years.

[bickster]

Have they readopted the original Clause IV yet, can't be far off

Quote

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Blairites replaced it with

Quote

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

This current Labour Party is more in tune with the former

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I genuinely don't understand the Corbyn is a Marxist/anti-semite thing.

What has he done (or the labour party in that respect)?

It's not a good look to me (uninformed).

The Marxism line comes from his economic policy and vocal solidarity with regimes like Venezuela and parties like Sinn Fein/IRA - who were solidly Marxist until fairly recently. Diane Abbott's comment that Mao (who killed 40-60 million of his own people) did more good than harm is a pretty good indicator, as were McDonnell's statements that he is in fact a Marxist and wants to destroy capitalism. I'm not making this up btw.

The anti-semitism line comes from Corbyn's association with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah which have the genocide of the Jewish people as a core objective, and the fact anti-semitism within Labour is now so prevalent the party is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission - a first for a UK political party. 

[welnik]

35 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

Your posts in this topic over the last few hours/day don't really add anything really.

Why do you think we'll be bankrupt?  What evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) do you have to support this? 

I'm not even being a smart arse, I'd like to cover all the bases before I go and tick a box in 3 weeks. 

Track record dude, track record 

 

[Sam-AVFC]

2 minutes ago, welnik said:

Track record dude, track record

Specifically?

[Rodders]

4 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Specifically?

 

that time when gordon brown took over all over the american banks and insisted they accelerated the flogging of sub prime mortgages, and those Collateral debt things. Remember? Nothing to do with the greed / incompetence of the banking system, it was all the labour government apparently. That magical logic where independent event happens during the period of a certain government somehow means they were linked. Labour also caused 9/11 too, 7/7, and the great floods of 2007.  But then the tories did cause world war 2 of course. 

[colhint]

54 minutes ago, snowychap said:

From Labour List:

The first vote was a conference motion (i.e. something to set the agenda and priorities for policy discussions); the decision as to what to incllude in their manifesto is then taken at the Clause V meeting.

Ahh OK thanks

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

When was the law changed? A while back, surely? And it's not working pensions, is it? it's state pension, I thought? Anyone entitled to a work pension is unaffected (in terms of that pension) aren't they? It's not been done well, and definitely people with little income, who thought they'd get something from the state when they were 60 have been left high and dry, to an extent.

BUT, I'm not convinced from what you've all said on here that "unfair" is the right term for it at all. The courts found that women were given unfair preference in getting pensions 5 years earlier than men, that much is true. And as a consequence, the preference was gradually withdrawn (not overnight, but what, 5, 10, 15 years after?).

The pension age should be equalised between men and women, shouldn't it? The people who stop gaining a long held and unlawful "advantage" but who nevertheless actually need help ought to be given help, but for every one of your "poorly paid women" there are no doubt other comfortably-off women. Help, if you're talking fairness, should go to those who need it based on need, not gender or age - not  to anyone of female gender only between 60 and 65, whether they need it or not.

 

46 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the Tory government introduced the policy  in 1995 mainly as it was ruled illegal by the ECHR that women had a lower retirement age than men  , they gave everyone 15 -20  years notice   .. the coalition then accelerated the timetimeline in 2011 and  reduced it by 2 years , but still giving everyone 7 years notice of intent

 

 

 

For those that weren't taking a keen interest in the wording of law passed through Parliament what then happened was women weren't notified that the changes impacted them until 12 months before retirement. Some women have received letters on their 59th birthday informing their retirement age was no longer 60, or 65, but 66.

I think its fair to assume that not getting 6 years of pension and only being told that at 12 months notice, aged 59, is less than ideal.

Also worth noting that many women weren't allowed to enter works pension schemes until the 1990's, as they were 'part time'. 

I'm slightly confused this is even being debated as whether its a big deal. I guess every male on here is fully up to speed with all the wording of all the legislation and all the consequences and financial projections that may impact them in the next 15 to 20 years.

[colhint]

17 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Specifically?

Well with the exception of Blair, every Labour Government in the Last 70 odd years has been kicked out of office after one term because the economy was on it's knees.

[Sam-AVFC]

2 minutes ago, colhint said:

Well with the exception of Blair, every Labour Government in the Last 70 odd years has been kicked out of office after one term because the economy was on it's knees.

But is it demonstrably worse than the Conservative governments during the same period?

[StefanAVFC]

57 minutes ago, Awol said:

the party is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission - a first for a UK political party. 

That the Tories aren't under investigation for their rampant Islamaphobia is a disgrace too.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

I'm not thrilled about the Tories either, but at least there'll still be a country in five years. When Labour casually threw out a £58 billion spending commitment yesterday, just as a post-manifesto aside, it was pretty clear they're not serious about what they're saying now. Which begs the question, what is their plan?  

Improved standards of living for all, I'd guess.

 

It does seem terrible when we can just increase the usage of food banks and **** the poor, though.

[welnik]

1 hour ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Specifically?

Where do I start. As has been said above,

point 1) 1975 through to 1979 - under a socialist government, industry was catastrophically inefficient and held to ransom by trade unions that were so pervasive that they told the Government of the day how to run the Country.  For those that are old enough to remember (like myself), 1977, green goddesses on the streets because the firemen were on strike, the winter of discontent 78-79, bodies not being buried, rubbish being piled up in the streets, compulsory 3 day working weeks and power cuts.............. and why, because, there was no money left. Denis Healey had to go cap in hand to the IMF for an emergency loan because of overspending. Even though we have a soveriegn currency! So all we had to do was print more money.  Inflation was rampant and things were tough. During this time we were laughingly known as "the sick man of Europe". Brilliant

point 2) Gordon Brown - where do I start with him. When Bliar (not a typo) won the election, this Country had been doing well for years because of Tory policies. GB stole your pension. He decided that he would raid our pensions to the tune of £100 billion to use for god knows what. Not content with that, Mr Micromanage himself failed to micro manage the economy and why.................. because the booming housing market bubble was a nice little earner in stamp duty. Now, had he mitigated for the housing bubble, we might not be in the position we are in now. Instead, he decided it would be a great idea to pour 10's of billions into proping up the banks. They even made up a snazzy name for it.................... quantitative easing, plunging the UK into massive debt which are still repaying.Brilliant

point 3) John McDonald - if you think things are bad now, vote this **** in. After 5 years, when the country is a basketcase again, will you still blame Tory austerity? So get ready for a tax hike. Not a couple of pennies, more 5-6p in every £1. There is no way on this planet that these clowns can afford the kind of waterfall that they are proposing. 

point 4) Nationalisation - do you really think that some numpty in an office in Westminster is better placed to run the water, the electric, the railways etc??? Good luck with that. The rail network is just a black hole of spending. 

So, under Boris things will be shit for a couple of years because he is a ****, but under Corbyn, we will be much worse off. The only thing will happen is that tax will go up and your standard of living will go down.  These idiots are like kids in a sweet shop who've won the lottery!  

As an aside, I've recently visited Hungary. I was quite suprised to see a large number of homeless people. I didn't realise Tory austery had reach this far.