Who to vote for?

[Blah Blah]

What they say they will do and what they actually do still remains to be seen Captain Marvel. One of the odd things about investment is how much of it finds its way into the coffers and share portfolios of big contractors too close to ministerial private interests, as opposed to being genuinely felt on the ground. Where is the investment for small business, education and the individual? Tory economic thinking tends to favour big business and grandiose infrastructure, over that start up some long term unemployed person with skills could get going in a declining region. Fifty thousand nurses may also sound great, but Blair increased public sector personnel by three million. Which figure do you think is the one where people really do see a difference in their local community? We all remember the Downing Street speeches where Thatcher quote St.Francis and May promised to help the poor. Neither delivered. Words are easy. Actions speak louder.

[diable rouge]

Whooosh!...

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So what Corbyn preached wasn't even his own

> thoughts but from a 17th Century journalist, say's

> it all really!!!!!!

>

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Oh FFS, pleaae make it stop, it's now The

> People's

> > Government

> > Another 3-word ditty, that's where Labour went

> > wrong, For the Many Not the Few was Dostoevsky

> > when they needed Jackie Collins...

[diable rouge]

Grove boy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> About as much as the millionaires behind Corbyn,

> John Lansmann and Len Mcklusky etc.

Congratulations, that has to be the 'best' false equivalence anyone on this forum has come up with...

[JohnL]

McDonnell excused himself and left real fast, Corbyn staying for "reflection" and the contenders line up as

favorite is Becky Long-Bailey (not Rebecca anymore it seems)

Angela Raynor

Lisa Nandy

Keir Starmer

[JohnL]

OKay a blast from the past, David Mellor was on Sky News this morning saying how Boris should get rid of Rees-Mogg as he keeps putting his foot in it.

I suppressed a little giggle remembering Mellor and feet.

[Captain Marvel]

'Blair increased public sector personnel by three million'

You say that like it's a good thing.

Anyway, it could be argued ad nauseam, I'm just suggesting that it looks like the intent is there, and that clearly not everybody sees demons when they look at the Conservatives.

[Loutwo]

Indeed blah blah, and perhaps this is why the Labour Party needs to get its act together ASAP if they are to successfully scrutinise what is in effect a landslide government.

Louisa.

[JohnL]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Blair increased public sector personnel by three

> million'

>

> You say that like it's a good thing.

>

> Anyway, it could be argued ad nauseam, I'm just

> suggesting that it looks like the intent is there,

> and that clearly not everybody sees demons when

> they look at the Conservatives.

"The new MPs already have an extensive shopping list of demands they promised to voters during the campaign, including rail links to remote ports, new nuclear reactors and train stations."

?As a newly elected member for the north-west of England I am going to be fighting very, very hard to get funding here. We need rail infrastructure, we need road infrastructure,? Andy Carter, the new MP for Warrington South, told the BBC?s Sunday Politics North West show.

I can't see it happening - I might be wrong and we might about to be going on a spending spree - but taxes then must go up.

[stepdown]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't see it happening - I might be wrong and we

> might about to be going on a spending spree - but

> taxes then must go up.

Not when you use the "golden rule" that increased borrowing is fine for infrastructure.

[JohnL]

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I can't see it happening - I might be wrong and

> we

> > might about to be going on a spending spree -

> but

> > taxes then must go up.

>

> Not when you use the "golden rule" that increased

> borrowing is fine for infrastructure.

Fair enough - If you can see the FT

"Chancellor Sajid Javid has wrapped the increased investment commitment into a new set of fiscal rules, which makes a clear distinction between investment and consumption spending. He has battled Treasury critics who do not share his understanding of the growth enhancing effects of public investment. "

and then further down a mention of EU trade

"the Johnson government may surprise everyone with its approach to trade. I believe Downing Street will seek an early trade deal with the EU based on ?high alignment? in all goods sectors and most services"

https://www.ft.com/content/998e096a-1cf7-11ea-81f0-0c253907d3e0

[fishbiscuits]

Agree with much of what blah says. We need a fairer society, a more progressive taxation policy, properly funded healthcare and welfare, a serious attempt at increasing the availability of affordable (and where necessary social) housing, a diversification of the economy, and a transfer of power/wealth away from London. And we need to ensure that every student who is willing and capable of higher education gets the opportunity.

This doesn't mean capitalism is a dirty word. Yes we do need to keep a check on it.. e.g. tech, finance, and energy like all industries, should be subject to appropriate regulation, and tax loopholes closed down.. but they needn't be viewed as enemies of the people. Let's not forget that the Nordics (which many of Corbyn's fans erroneously draw analogies with) are fundamentally capitalist countries too. I don't think you'd see Sweden borrowing a couple of hundred billion to fund a nationalisation programme...

[JohnL]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diversification of the economy, and a transfer of

> power/wealth away from London. And we need to

yet one of the first bit of news I heard after the election was the below

"An unnamed family bought a central London townhouse on Friday for ?65m in the confidence that Boris Johnson had secured a landslide general election victory.

The deal is understood to be one of the most expensive ever transacted on the UK residential property market,"

[fishbiscuits]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> yet one of the first bit of news I heard after the

> election was the below

>

> "An unnamed family bought a central London

> townhouse on Friday for ?65m in the confidence

> that Boris Johnson had secured a landslide general

> election victory.

>

> The deal is understood to be one of the most

> expensive ever transacted on the UK residential

> property market,"

Going pretty well so far, then!

I believe Johnson is a big fan of these huge London apartment developments, marketed primarily to Asian and middle-eastern investors and often left empty. Expect more of the same once the currency settles.

[stepdown]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chancellor Sajid Javid has wrapped the increased

> investment commitment into a new set of fiscal

> rules, which makes a clear distinction between

> investment and consumption spending.

I don't see that contradicts anything I said, but the fiscal rule I referenced is from 1997, it's not a new idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_(fiscal_policy)

[dulwichbloke]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Admin - think this thread with its title has

> served its purpose now? Now serving as a vehicle

> for the usual suspects to endlessly rant and spout

> rubbish retrospectively now the election is over.

As if you weren't spouting delusional rubbish BEFORE your (car crash) election?!

I appreciate you are probably a Momentum activist who is busy trying to hide from the obvious fact that 'real' people (as some on here have referred to them as) last week massively rejected Corbyn and the Labour party and their policies, but there is a bit of irony in that comment isn't there?

I'm getting a large sack of popcorn ready for the next couple of months of internecine blood-letting and finger pointing in the LP - could be good. I see Lady Thornbury is today starting a legal action against fellow Labour party member for suggesting she might look down on the working classes as being stupid. Lady T might find her problem is that she has already been busted posting a sneering picture online of White Van Man in Essex. That might dent her 'as if I would ever think like that' defence.

It's an entertaining start to the in-fighting though!

[JohnL]

stepdown Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Chancellor Sajid Javid has wrapped the

> increased

> > investment commitment into a new set of fiscal

> > rules, which makes a clear distinction between

> > investment and consumption spending.

>

> I don't see that contradicts anything I said, but

> the fiscal rule I referenced is from 1997, it's

> not a new idea:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_(fiscal_

> policy)

that's because I was agreeing with you :)

[stepdown]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> that's because I was agreeing with you :)

I worried that might be the case! :D

[malumbu]

I was forced onto a chug chug train on Saturday, as having booked the tickets a mere five days in advance it was the only cheap option apart from one that stopped at every station from Northampton to Euston. It was like a bus.

Many of the lines were electrified in the late 60s when the Wilson Government in its White Heat Technology phase. Ironically much of this lead by Tony Benn as Minister of Technology at a time when we were forging ahead on developing and building the next generation of nuclear power stations.

Anyway sorry for the history lesson but my experience on Saturday shows the need to simplify, and preferably reduce prices, on our privatised rail network and as important electrify the whole bloody lot not the half assed attempt of recent governments.

Anyway I digress but relevant to the new government.

Here's some more of the history lesson

www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/sep/19/harold-wilson-white-heat-technology-speech

[JohnL]

dulwichbloke Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I appreciate you are probably a Momentum activist

Unfortunately they probably call him a red tory - some divisions we have

[Seabag]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> McDonnell excused himself and left real fast,

> Corbyn staying for "reflection" and the contenders

> line up as

>

> favorite is Becky Long-Bailey (not Rebecca

> anymore it seems)

> Angela Raynor

> Lisa Nandy

> Keir Starmer

Starmer is the one with the gravitas required

[dulwichbloke]

Sir Kier's problem is that it is being widely reported that he and Lady T were the main people who successfully pressured Corbyn into changing his obvious Leave preference to his absurd 'People's Vote'/neutrality position.

That attempt to play to a Metroplotan London audience who wanted to circumvent the largest democratic vote result the UK has ever had may have played well with those and others (living in their Metropolitan bubble - some of whom were ranting rabidly on this internet forum), but was a disaster with the 'real' voters outside London and Scotland.

Just as happened on this forum, those 'real' voters may be lambasted as merely being stupid and/or taken in, but the reality is they railed against attempts to treat their vote as meaningless and so Sir Keir played quite a role in the LP's destruction last week. The far left do have a point in this regard (although they control the party and went along with it).

[seenbeen]

Captain Marvel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Blair increased public sector personnel by three

> million'

>

> You say that like it's a good thing.

>

> Anyway, it could be argued ad nauseam, I'm just

> suggesting that it looks like the intent is there,

> and that clearly not everybody sees demons when

> they look at the Conservatives.

I remember all those Public Sector jobs...they were referred to as 'non-jobs'

Labour went for quantity, not quality

http://www.solfed.org.uk/catalyst/more-crap-jobs-than-ever-tony-blair-claims

[Seabag]

dulwichbloke Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sir Kier's problem is that it is being widely

> reported that he and Lady T were the main people

> who successfully pressured Corbyn into changing

> his obvious Leave preference to his absurd

> 'People's Vote'/neutrality position.

>

> That attempt to play to a Metroplotan London

> audience who wanted to circumvent the largest

> democratic vote result the UK has ever had may

> have played well with those and others (living in

> their Metropolitan bubble - some of whom were

> ranting rabidly on this internet forum), but was a

> disaster with the 'real' voters outside London and

> Scotland.

>

> Just as happened on this forum, those 'real'

> voters may be lambasted as merely being stupid

> and/or taken in, but the reality is they railed

> against attempts to treat their vote as

> meaningless and so Sir Keir played quite a role in

> the LP's destruction last week. The far left do

> have a point in this regard (although they control

> the party and went along with it).

But be honest, who out of any of that group of people mentioned would be the face of the party when the next election comes?

None, quite possibly. The party is going to have to go through a series of contractions and conflicts, before it can settle and remotely become electable.

The next ?electable? person isn?t going to show their position at this point.

It?s a temporary leader to take the crap that?s coming. KS is vain enough to give it a go.

[dulwichbloke]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He [Corbyn] has huge personal support - just depends on who

> you rely on for your information and which press

> you choose.

...or (now) which General Election result you choose look at!

That's quite a good guide to whether someone has "huge personal support" in the real world.

[malumbu]

So Corbyn and the Labour Party should have nailed their colours to their chest and supported Brexit without a referendum (difficult as they had already blocked a softish deal), to retain Workington and West Bromwich whilst confusing their Metropolitan elite in London, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool.

Discuss.......