UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Sweet Square]

No no it can't be that.

The last couple of pages are fairly evident that the Blairites are far more fan boy than Corbynites.

I've hardly ever seen people try to say Corbyn is some great orator or leader. His weaknesses are accepted but obviously the policy direction is what underlines his support.

With Blair it's as if he'd single handily solve climate change, our midfield and every other issue in the world. Whilst his followers are dogmatic on praising centrism and always attacking Corbyn with nonsense they won't bother defending when called out on it, see Sun Tzu. They then have the gall to dismiss everyone else as echo chamber commentary.

I supported Blair and more so Brown i certainly wasn't against them despite disagreements but they caused so many of the issues Labour now face and were a huge contribution towards brexit occurring in the first place.

Yeah it honestly it's not worth the time ''debating''with this lot. They have no analysis as to why politics has change over the last decade(Its simply to forget the crash of 08 happened and carrying on as normal), the failure of their own politics(Turns out it wasn't the end of history)and of course no ideas on how fix the huge global issues we face.

 

[RedSky]

try just red tory... you will find a fekton and yellow tory

Doing that now, I used google with the following search: redcafe.net "Red Tory"

Results below in the Spoiler (sorry for everyone i'm quoting here:

Spoiler

You're also not free to flat out state or imply that that all lefties or Corbyn supporters are antisemitic which you frequently do.

Red Tory is a fairly innocent accusation and trivial compared to the levels you lot stoop.

What liberal tory voters ?

Out of interest has Blair started a new centrist party ?

Look you've listed the reasons why you've joined the Lib Dems and the fact is you've left the Labour Party because its now a left wing social democratic party. The only way to win you over would be actually go further to the right New Labour never was. The whole program would have to be destroyed which includes such things as a green new deal and stop welfare sanctions(Sorry mate but your really not that interesting or useful for these polices to be dropped). The fact is the party you've joined isn't a centrist party, it isn't New Labour 2.0. The Lib Dem imposed austerity measures, have literally former conservative mp's(One who think migrates should be HIV tested!!!)and its leader when in government voted more with the tories than Micheal Gove.

The red tory argument that is made against yourself and others has it seems, turned out to be true. Again to win you over would mean changing the whole party platform into something more right wing than New Labour(That's why I posted the clip, to get you to understand the party has changed). So because that can't happen(I really want to make some effort to fight against the earth dying)the Labour Party has to try and win over other people who have far better politics than yourself. Which is a very hard task to meet but if the party just relies on with voters like yourself then UK will keep its inhumane welfare tests, it will continue the attacks on disable people, continue kicking the shit out of working people, continue to have a murderous foreign policy and do feck all about climate change.

The party tends to poll better than the leadership

Boot Corbyn and put starmer in... Form a remain alliance with snp libs and greens
Could see them winning the election like that.
Clearly won't happen because of momentum thinking of starmer as a red Tory the libs are yellow Tories and the SNP as Scottish Tories

The substance is that he isnt a Tory. A Tory, or a Red Tory. He isnt Blairite, he isnt an establishment stooge, he is a conviction socialist, a candidate that offers actual change, rather than the kind of bullshit change-in-name-only that New Labour represented.

I dont know how much deeper than that it goes. I want to say not much, but perhaps I am not giving him or them enough credit. Ultimately the conversation always gets derailed by questions about whether he is a terrorist sympathiser and an anti semite, which drives people into their tribal positions and blocks discussions about policy.

I never get the sense that his opinions have changed one iota since the 1970s. I think there is an interesting socialist case to make by someone who is both financially and technologically literate, but I dont ever see or hear him making it. And I dont think that is because he lacks charisma or presentational skills, I think he lacks vision.

I also still believe, as I did shortly after he won, that he never wanted to be in the position he's in, and resents not being on his allotment digging up his turnips.

As an aside, here is an amusing excerpt from a political book, Start Again, by Philip Collins:

So Labour went down the 'middle' last election and Lost.

Why do you think. They offered Tory Lite. No vision that ordinary people can relate too. Hey. You have to tighten the belt. But not as much as what the Torys say.

Polls and think tanks are not going to win you elections.

An honest vision from an honest candidate will.

Such a candidate will move people to come vote for you.

We also have to ask ourselves if we want any of these people who voted for an unjust war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people, representing us.

When the Labour Party listens to, and speaks to, all sections of society, it is the greatest force of progressive change this country has ever known. If I could prove what great things an outward-looking Labour Party could achieve, then maybe people would have a change of mind. Yet the more I spoke out, the more isolated I felt. When I pointed out the record of the New Labour government that offered me so much as I was growing-up, I was attacked by Labour members as a quisling sell-out. When I criticised the party leadership I was labelled as a ‘Red Tory’ and ‘Blairite scum’.

The self-righteousness of the metropolitan left combined with the cultism of the far-left has created a toxic cocktail of absolutism and puritanism within the Labour Party. If you are a Labour member and speak out against this ‘New Politics’ you will be confronted with a wall of vitriol or worse.

Labour’s results in regional elections earlier this month were what was expected. Labour have gone backwards since last May. Since 1988, there has always been movement towards the main opposition after one year of a parliament. Since 1974 and excluding general election years, opposition parties have always gained seats in local elections — with the exceptions of 1982, 1985 and now 2016.

Labour’s lead from this election result was 1%, which matches the movement from Blair’s landslide in 1997 to Hague’s Conservatives in 1998. While Hague was battling a Blair government, post landslide, enjoying his honeymoon period; Corbyn’s Labour were up against a Tory government that has had a shambolic year and has been split down the middle by the EU referendum. A credible opposition would have crushed the Tories this month. Ipsos-Mori have said that given Labour’s collapse in Scotland, they would need to win the 2020 election by 13% to form a government.

The ‘alternative Media’ will promote self-serving half-truths without a care in the world. Lonely op-eds in the liberal press will attempt to spin a pleasant web of delusion. But the truth is Corbyn’s politics cannot reach beyond his base. Labour’s few successes in the last elections came in places with a large middle class graduate or public sector base. As Stephen Bush of the New Statesman put it: “places where people put wind chimes in their front door”.

A middle class liberal cannot understand a working class individual voting for the Tories (because surely it would be against their economic interests, no?). The liberal middle class cannot understand working class voters, so they are instead treated with a gentle distain. Just look that how the Labour Party now talks about immigration. Simply repeating that freedom of movement is “generally good thing” and “migration is a plus to our economy”, is patronising and paternalistic towards socially conservative voters. We can’t just tell working class people what is good for them and expect their vote.

Studies have shown that socially conservative Settlers were more likely than other values groups to mention immigration, toughness on welfare, standing up for our country, Europe (either a referendum or pulling out) and fiscal responsibility. All the things Corbyn is weak on. The Labour Party has given up fighting for its working class base.

Jeremy Corbyn’s brand of old-school socialism attracted “high-status city dwellers” in the summer and they still like what they hear from him. Even after a woeful 9 months in which Corbyn’s leadership has looked rudderless and ineffective. Even when Labour look on course to suffer a defeat in 2020 even worse than under Ed Miliband. Labour members would still overwhelmingly vote for Mr Corbyn if a leadership ballot was triggered.

To the middle-class liberals, the difference between the centrist Labour government and a Tory government seem academic. Anyway, a Tory government creates a righteous fire in our bellies and each protest we’ll plan for their fall. Of course we hate their cuts, but they won’t actually ruin our lives. So here we are, the Labour Party is becoming a minority party of sectional interests of a liberal middle class.

We’ll share righteous memes, and lament Jeremy Hunt, stage measly marches in the name of ‘the people’. We’ll have twitterstorm after twitterstorm and we’ll feel like we’re making a difference. But we won’t be. The Labour Party is sleep-walking to electoral oblivion, but hey, at least we’ll be feeling good about ourselves.

You can't say that in this forum...
I'll fix it for you
Something something red Tory... Mutter mutter Iraq... OOOOOOOOOH JEREMY CORBYN

The party tends to poll better than the leadership

Boot Corbyn and put starmer in... Form a remain alliance with snp libs and greens
Could see them winning the election like that.
Clearly won't happen because of momentum thinking of starmer as a red Tory the libs are yellow Tories and the SNP as Scottish Tories

The Guardian is independent, yeah. They've chosen their Red Tory Anti-Corbyn narrative all on their own.

Yup somebody has to stand up to the momentum lot who call anybody who isn't left of Trotsky a red Tory ... Meh probably easier to just leave them be and make another party the focus of the centre left ground

My gut feel is that if we do leave the EU the libs rebrand as the European democrats on a policy of rejoin and become that party and overtake labour

Oh and thank you Owen Smith, keep em coming so we can split that Red Tory vote

Hear hear, stick that cretin on a rocket aimed towards the moon and that leader has my vote, even if they're the red Tory drone type. Bonus points if Blair is on it with him.

Sorry mate, genuinely, and for your recent troubles. Hope you're on the other side of all that and things are going well now.

I just don't enjoy all the "Red Tory", "Blairite scum" nonsense that keeps coming and coming from the Momentum 'side' in this debate. It stifles any chance of compromise, and the more people convince themselves that those who disagree with them in the Labour Party are evil, or see the world in a completely different way, the worse our chances of any sort of success at the end of this go. If you, and many others, truly believe that the centre-left are the enemy, then the Party is truly dead, and there's no chance of any government to the left of David Cameron's in the next 15 years. The Labour Party is a shambles at the moment but it doesn't have to be forever. The left is on track to eat itself, it doesn't need to.

i have to say if there was a snap general election they might be safe - or does labours new selection policy come into effect if an election is called... because I think if one is called then it 6 weeks to the polls and thats going to be messy if there is infighting over who the candidate is and incumbent mps standing as independents etc.
But yeah if they side with May their odds on reselection have to diminish even if corbyn allowed a free vote on the issue... it will be red tory blairite scum etc

Is there anything on his past from a credible journalist? By that I mean one that doesn't use the term "red Tory" in their writing.

Genuinely thought the Rabbi was being facetious.
This is beyond parody.

As for Rachel, she’s been a nutcase on twitter for years, her anti-blackness has shown up on many occasions too.

Also, for good measure there’s an account called ‘Red Tory’ offering to sell these t-shirts - the same Party that put up posters saying ‘hang Nelson Mandela’ and an MP offering to shoot him. Nice.

Lib Dem for me too, at the moment. Corbyn's lot have made it quite clear how much they despise the rest of Labour, although I would like the choice of a new centre-left party as well.
In a strange way that might suit lefties anyway. Given that they seem to have no interest in retaining so-called 'red tory/tory light' votes, never mind attracting the current centre or right voters needed to actually win a general election, their only chance of even a share of power might be some sort of coalition in a hung parliament.

To be fair there is a better reason than that. If he gives up the leadership and a Blairite or other centrist (what he would call Red Tory) replaces him they will change the rules again, get rid of the "one member one vote" rule that lies that the root of this whole fiasco and the left of the party will be back out in the cold, and you can be damn sure they will never get another chance like this to take the party back.

If you are a conviction politician you may think a battle for the soul of your party is worth having, even if the timing of it is inconvenient and you understand you are doing short term damage to your election prospects.

Im not saying I agree he should stay. But I dont think he is staying because he's a narcissist.

I’ve got a friend who is an ardent Corbyn supporter. He just calls me a red Tory every time I call Corbyn out on his blatant leave preference and tells me he acts like that because most labour voters want to leave.

They just don’t want to face reality. What’s more, taking one day to address the biggest issue affecting Britain’s future isn’t going to harm a campaign that ends in May.

yes but that makes us red tory centrist scum and we are worse than johnson etc

 

[RedSky]

Now I don't want to point fingers @sun_tzu but you seem to use that phrase quite a lot. When you read through those posts (really not many when you consider it searched the entire redcafe history). There are very few posts that seem to use Red Tory as an insult. If anything the majority of posters on here think it's bullshit. *shrugs*

To confirm:

Sun_tzu - 6 posts
Adebesi - 2 posts
ThierryHenry - 2 posts
Kaos - 2 posts
Smores - 1 post
Sweet Square - 1 post
Red Dreams - 1 post
africanspur - 1 post
Ubik - 1 post
villain - 1 post
711 - 1 post
That'sHernandez - 1 post

 

[villain]

Doing that now, I used google with the following search: redcafe.net "Red Tory"

He's actually the most common person who's referred to Red Tories & Yellow Tories

 

[SteveJ]

Sometimes, even Ignore isn't enough...

 

[MikeUpNorth]

They're not expropriating the shares, they can't be sold. It's far more accurate to say they're forcing companies to create a portfolio with the employees benefiting from the dividends.

It is the very definition of an expropriation. And why on earth would any company decide to list in the UK if they would be subjected to this policy?

 

[CassiusClaymore]

To be fair, I don't often come in here but when I do and I read your posts you're attacking Labour rather than Tories. Seems you lean far more right than you do left. If i've missed your posts on Tories then I appoligise.

Now, if I do a search on redcafe for "red tory centrist scum" am I going to find any posts?

I'm sure if you do a search on 'Jezbollah', 'Wrong daily' or any other of his hilarious surname puns you'll crash the internet.

In other news, look at this feeble excuse for a leader ducking the climate change debate last night (and sending his Daddy along) and now refusing to confirm he'll do the Andrew Neill one...



He really is pathetic.

 

[Maticmaker]

There is a strong argument that Johnson has seen this as a bit of a bear trap as well with i think 2 pmq's (perhaps 3) since he came to power and of course shutting parliament down illegally as well
Agree though that Cummings has a far better media strategy than Seumas Milne

Yes I agree, Boris, even in the House, will be difficulty to tie down, he is an ideas man, broad brush, uplands viewing etc., his grasp of political strategy is good, but his ability to think deeply about policy etc and especially before he speaks, is limited.
Boris has been taking lessons from the Donald; stick with your home crowd, keep moving, take control of your own publicity... even when it backfires; give some group (preferably a large group not a minority) a big win, then stand back and take the plaudits.

Boris and Jeremy are the two front runners, nobody else really has a chance, from now on, in the run-in they should both only appear in public together, ditch all the rest, they are fighting for the scraps. The big GE match is Boris v Jeremy. The first debate 'Brexit v NHS' will also be the last debate, so viewing public expect more of the same!

 

[MikeUpNorth]

They're not expropriating the shares, they can't be sold. It's far more accurate to say they're forcing companies to create a portfolio with the employees benefiting from the dividends.

The FT provides a good overview:

A Labour government would confiscate about £300bn of shares in 7,000 large companies and hand them to workers in one of the biggest state raids on the private sector to take place in a western democracy, according to analysis by the Financial Times and Clifford Chance.

The £300bn share seizure would be the consequence of Mr McDonnell’s plans for “inclusive ownership funds”, where every company with more than 250 staff would have to gradually transfer 10 per cent of their shares to workers. The radical plan would see the transfer of 1 per cent a year of shares from shareholders to workers over 10 years. Shares would be held and managed by workers, who would receive dividends up to £500 each per year. Any income beyond that level would be redistributed to the Exchequer, representing a stealth tax by the state.

Labour has never put an estimate on the scale of the transfer of private wealth from shareholders to workers that the policy would entail. But the FT and law firm Clifford Chance have sought to gauge the size of the policy by extrapolating data from the Office for National Statistics. The ONS estimates that financial and non-financial corporations have a book value of £5.5tn. The national accounts do not separate out large companies, but 57 per cent of overall corporate turnover derives from large companies, according to the ONS. On that basis the value of large private sector companies is about £3tn — meaning Labour would expropriate £300bn. It’s the biggest raid of all our nest eggs in living memory Matt Kilcoyne For comparison, the windfall tax by Tony Blair’s New Labour government on utility companies raised just £4.8bn.

“There is no historic precedent for this,” said Dan Neidle, a partner at Clifford Chance. “We are in completely uncharted territory.” Mr Neidle predicted litigation from aggrieved companies and shareholders, challenges from other countries, including the US and China, potential WTO complaints and perhaps “retaliation in kind”.

Matt Kilcoyne, of the Adam Smith Institute, called the share move “expropriation”. He added: “Our largest investors are pension funds and they’ll see billions of pounds wiped off their books. So we’ll all see the value of our pensions fall. It’s the biggest raid of all our nest eggs in living memory.”

 

[RedSky]

I'm sure if you do a search on 'Jezbollah'

4 pages worth.

 

[villain]

 

[owlo]

At a time of economic prosperity, Practically a decade of growth, he ran up a steady deficit and significantly increased national debt. He didn’t put anything away, which is what he

This is completely misleading and suggests either an attempt to deceive or a critical misunderstanding of the facts.

Debt [As % of gdp] was 40.4% in 1997, and 36.4% in 2008.It was 60% when the conservatives came to power. A 3% deficit was perfectly reasonable. Inflation was low and finance/property was driving it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

Of course there were small mistakes here and there, but to suggest 'labour ran up the deficit' is just junk. And don't dare mention manufacturing decline. That started pre-Thatcher, who destroyed it for good for the most part.

It was the conservatives who screwed the pooch. An expansionary policy in recession is pretty much Keynes 101. To start [when Brown was coordinating global response] bond yields were good, but based on flawed economic analysis at the time, the whole 'cut the deficit thing' became a thing, bond yields dropped, and boom. It was especially harsh in the light of our recent diversification into [mainly] US bonds.

 

[RedSky]

Now, I don't want to throw stones here but... I stopped quoting after a while, there were 28 posts.

Maybe, the posts you think that use these daft terms are actually mainly written by yourself? *shrugs*

Spoiler

i doubt id bin it... i have a bit of experience with guns and that does not sound like a very safe way of handling ammo ... Plus I am looking for somebody to engrave my Reverso though so depending how skillfully they had put my name on the bullet I might need to track them down.

As for JRM... well as somebody who contributed to Labour for years until jezbollah dragged us into the the depths of unelectability I can say that i am no fan of his politics (I do think he manages his image effectively though and I suspect he would be a better dinner party guest than corbyn)

Tom Watson on LBC
"Luciana was bullied out by racists"
Over to you jezbollah... What you gonna do about it
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/deputy-leader-tom-watson-says-15857976

Traditionally I'd agree... But also rember they have been squeezed by both new labour and Cameron's compassionate conservatism both trying to occupy a more central position and ultimately using that to win elections from.

We now have comrade jezbollah dragging labour off to the left of venesuela
And the erg dragging the conservatives somewhere to the right of British empire

It does leave a lot of room in the centre for a party

The libs are a damaged brand but do have a decent grass roots organisation behind them and t.i.g. offers a chance to refresh and re-emerge... I could see a centre party comprised of the two of them doing ok... Particularly as Corbyn is seen as backing brexit there is possibly 48% of people feeling neither major party is representing their views at the moment.

Won't be easy to break the 2 party monopoly but the circumstances are favourable to giving it a go

I didn't...
I said some would Blame Blairites
Some would maintain a superior attitude and blame the public for being too thick to see jezbollah / comrade Corbyn / the dear leader MK2 for the hero he is
Some will blame the media
Some will blame Israel / jews
Who knows some may even admit Corbyn was unelectable and his brexit fudge is a mess
So evidently I'm not saying all are antesemitic and will blame Jews either by implication or directly... I'm saying there will be a number of reasons though I believe most will blame external factors than accept that standing over on the left and basically pointing to anybody on your right and accusing them of being selfish cnuts is never going to either win people over to your arguments and therefore is electoral suicide
The fact that the ehrc have a formal investigation though is literally independent proof that there is a big problem with antisemitism
The only 2 parties that there has been enough evidence to trigger said formal investigations are the bnp and labour.

Meh the parties should take it out of her hands and form a remain alliance like they did in the last by election ... would mean some compramise and sacrificing some target seats but with a clear objective that "should" be above party politics

The main problem with that is of course labours refusal to engage with the remain alliance in the last by election and most probable refusal to do so this time

Gut feel Libs and SNP get around 100 seats in the election and labour would only need to avoid their worst election resulst since WW2 to be in with a chance of having a minority government / coalition... but their brexit policy will gash that up and they will end up around 200 seats (and blame the media, jews, blairites and basically anybody but corbyn and his brexit stance)

Is there any legalities about tactical voting websites (and their funding) - I know momentum have already been reported to the electoral commission as they are not registered and have said themselves they have raised £100K so far (the limit for non registered is I believe £20k)

And basically handing the evidence out publicly


thought they would have learned after last time?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47468571

still Im looking forward to the call with jezbollah this evening - they really don't vet things very well do they

Meh then leave it to the county to pick and you can get 8/1 on labour winning a majority
So if you think corbyn is going to win make yourself a fortune ... though I wouldn't be surprised to see no majority and basically libs / SNP demanding they get rid of corbyn as hes simply a toxic brand
Gut feel though is boris wins and you end up with a hard Brexit and the echo chamber blaming the fake news press and meh probably blaming Blair and or Jews and insisting jezbollah should remain leader

90% of the vitriol aimed at her is because she was in labour friends of Israel... It's like that's not allowed in labour anymore
Though in fairness Corbyn has not even spoken to Berger since 2017 despite the racist abuse and threats she was getting...
Honestly the party are making themselves unelectable and actually untill they get rid of comrade jezbollah that's probably just as well

Well I'm sure once comrade Corbyn comes to power me and the centrist MP's will be shown the error of our blairite ways in re-education camps.... Well not Luciana perhaps as jezbollah probably has different camps in mind for her
Joking.... Well half joking

Indeed though even if labour get smashed it will apparently be the media's fault that jezbollah has to answer questions regarding Antisemitism and having to take a stance on brexit... And lets not forget the quagmire that the Irish boarder / history with the IRA will become when he is questioned on that

fixed for ya
Ref the army... please tell me what experience you have of the army and how this is really any different than somebody pinning a picture of jezbollah to a dartboard

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/deputy-leader-tom-watson-says-15857976

"Racist bullies drove Luciana Berger out of the labour party"
That's the quote from Tom Watson the deputy leader
Surely jez either has to say he's wrong and sack him... Or admit he's right and sort it out
Over to you jezbollah

Jezbollah isn't antisemitic it's clearly a Zionist conspiracy.... Oooooh Jeremy Corbyn etc
I have a feeling labours (and particularly Corbyn) are going to get a lot of questions over this in any snap election... And to date they have done a really really bad job of dealing with it

Kick them out and call the party jezbollah ?

And how is supporting a 2 party solution and wanting the people in both of those states to be free from attack racist exactly

Fair point... Shows just how useless jezbollah is to be 8 points behind doesn't it

So if Tig had stayed in labour and voted against manifesto pledges that would have been ok?... Is that now the convoluted argument to defend jezbollah

 

[nickm]

Yeah it honestly it's not worth the time ''debating''with this lot. They have no analysis as to why politics has change over the last decade(Its simply to forget the crash of 08 happened and carrying on as normal)

You don't have an analysis either. You have just dug into the past and dug up discredited political comfort blankets from yesteryear. But because they are new (to you), you think they must be the answer.

 

[Kaos]

Now, I don't want to throw stones here but... I stopped quoting after a while, there were 28 posts.

Maybe, the posts you think that use these daft terms are actually mainly written by yourself? *shrugs*

Now compare these to how many of his posts are actually focused on attacking Tory policy.

 

[sun_tzu]

Now, I don't want to throw stones here but... I stopped quoting after a while, there were 28 posts.

Maybe, the posts you think that use these daft terms are actually mainly written by yourself? *shrugs*

oh no... jezbollah is one of mine - its far easier than writing out all the anti semitic and terrorist sympathizing bullshit hes done over the years - plus it has a nice succinct ring to it

 

[Paul the Wolf]

They're not expropriating the shares, they can't be sold. It's far more accurate to say they're forcing companies to create a portfolio with the employees benefiting from the dividends.

Theft

 

[Smores]

It is the very definition of an expropriation. And why on earth would any company decide to list in the UK if they would be subjected to this policy?

Certainly not as i understand it but I'm happy to be corrected if you've a better definition. The decision making (voting rights etc)will be delegated to the employees but they won't take legal ownership. Thats my qualified guess as someone within financial services and aware of similar albeit smaller schemes anyway.

The majority of listed companies already build in share options or for higher ups gifted shares as part of their remuneration packages. Directors regularly get millions worth of shares. Of course this is a different model and goes further than most but it's not extreme and companies will just transition.

I'm not really that bothered by it as a policy as i think for most it'll just replace their bonus and have limited up side.

 

[villain]

oh no... jezbollah is one of mine - its far easier than writing out all the anti semitic and terrorist sympathizing bullshit hes done over the years - plus it has a nice succinct ring to it

No posts of you criticising discrimination and racism perpetuated by the Tories though? Particularly islamophobia & anti-blackness

 

[nickm]

This is completely misleading and suggests either an attempt to deceive or a critical misunderstanding of the facts.

A 3% deficit was perfectly reasonable. Inflation was low and finance/property was driving it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

Of course there were small mistakes here and there, but to suggest 'labour ran up the deficit' is just junk. And don't dare mention manufacturing decline. That started pre-Thatcher, who destroyed it for good for the most part.

It was the conservatives who screwed the pooch. An expansionary policy in recession is pretty much Keynes 101.

An expansionary fiscal policy in a recession is Keynes 101. An expansion in a boom is not.

I agree labour did not run up the deficit. But what it did was run a significant deficit in a time of extraordinary expansion, which was anything but prudent, given recessions are inevitable.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

oh no... jezbollah is one of mine - its far easier than writing out all the anti semitic and terrorist sympathizing bullshit hes done over the years - plus it has a nice succinct ring to it

When I die and go to my personal Hell it'll be tied at a desk with my eyes held open by clamps staring at your word bingo posts for all eternity.

 

[sun_tzu]

When I die and go to my personal Hell it'll be tied at a desk with my eyes held open by clamps staring at your word bingo posts for all eternity.

sounds great... Hopefully me and my red tory buddies can be there reading the words out to you as well... you know just to add to the torture

 

[RedSky]

sounds great... Hopefully me and my red tory buddies can be there reading the words out to you as well... you know just to add to the torture

So you're just a troll. Well, i'm shocked.

 

[owlo]

An expansionary fiscal policy in a recession is Keynes 101. An expansion in a boom is not.

I agree labour did not run up the deficit. But what it did was run a significant deficit in a time of extraordinary expansion, which was anything but prduent.

Markers weren't there for a boom though. Inflation was low, growth was low. I did agree it was a mistake (especially with the benefit of hindsight), but it wasn't huge my any means. Running 3% at a 36.4% rate to GDP, I don't see any glaring errors. Certainly didn't look structural.

Some nice counterfiscal stuff like higher stamp duty etc could have helped. (Especially given growth was being driven by housing)

Worth noting there was no crystal ball. Hindsight is always 20/20. His response to the crash was good. Without bond yields dropping through the roof later I think we'd have been better off. (Again, the the rather strange gold sale in apparent attempts at asset diversification still disturbs me somewhat.)

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Certainly not as i understand it but I'm happy to be corrected if you've a better definition. The decision making (voting rights etc)will be delegated to the employees but they won't take legal ownership. Thats my qualified guess as someone within financial services and aware of similar albeit smaller schemes anyway.

The majority of listed companies already build in share options or for higher ups gifted shares as part of their remuneration packages. Directors regularly get millions worth of shares. Of course this is a different model and goes further than most but it's not extreme and companies will just transition.

I'm not really that bothered by it as a policy as i think for most it'll just replace their bonus and have limited up side.

There's a huge difference between a company freely deciding to offer stock options as a means to attract and retain key employees, and the government seizing private property.

The other major issues with the policy:

• It only applies to companies with more than 250 employees. Any company approaching that mark will be strongly disincentivised from hiring more staff, presumably electing to outsource functions. Any company with 300 employees will I'm sure look at firing 50.
• What happens with M&A activity? When a UK company is purchased or merges with a non-UK company not subject to this policy?
• What about groups of companies, especially across national borders?
• It's also just going to mean companies defer dividends and wait for a less extreme government, or decide to transfer value to shareholders through share buy-backs.

It's a mind bogglingly dumb policy. I think Labour imagine modern business is much like it was in the 1970s, with a neat division between 'workers' and 'bosses' and shareholders.

If Labour wants worker representation on company boards, then just do that. But this scheme is economically illiterate and dangerous.

 

[sun_tzu]

No posts of you criticising discrimination and racism perpetuated by the Tories though? Particularly islamophobia & anti-blackness

Thats with the EHRC and if they find enough evidence then start that formal investigation... prosecute and chuck them in the cell next to corbyn (oops) Jezbollah
As for now only one party has reached that bar (well the BNP did as well)

 

[RedChip]

I think I must be one of the few people to miss Gordon Brown brand politics. Terrible politician but a quite brilliant man. (Gold mistake notwithstanding)

I was an admirer too. If only he had had Blair's charisma...

 

[FigmentOfYerImagination]

I doubt it, the demographic that you are talking about are ideologically driven. I think most would have stuck with the fundamental ideological aims of Labour. The middle aged, middle class centrists would have been a different matter.

Those ideologues would have gone to the greens in a tactical voting setup.

 

[villain]

Thats with the EHRC and if they find enough evidence then start that formal investigation... prosecute and chuck them in the cell next to corbyn (oops) Jezbollah
As for now only one party has reached that bar (well the BNP did as well)

Speaking of the EHRC, you didn't respond to my post regarding them the other day.

While it is valid that Labour aren't guilt-free of antisemitism within their party.
You need to put context into all forms of racism as well - for example Islamophobia just isn't given the equal treatment it should do as antisemitism.
The Muslim Council of Britain have asked the EHRC to investigate the Conservatives since 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49763550
The EHRC actually gave the Tories 1 month to respond to complaints of Islamophobia in May https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...aints-ehrc-watchdog-theresa-may-a8918576.html

BJ promised to investigate Islamophobia when he was elected PM, he has since delayed the investigation.
Dozens of Conservative MP's have posted Islamophobic content online.
The list goes on & on - and that's before we get into, 'n****r in a woodpile', 'letterboxes' and windrush.
And yet - nothing has happened, why? Because Islamophobia isn't treated in the same way antisemitism is.

So yes, Labour are the only party that is under a formal EHRC investigation. However, Labour are far from the only institutionally racist political party (they all are), and discrimination against Jewish people is given priority over other forms of discrimination - in my opinion.

Since that post, there's been many more prominent Muslim MP's being vocal about the discrimination they've faced from the Tories.
Are you suggesting that unless the EHRC get involved, no racism is taking place? Despite the facts clearly showing that the EHRC simply don't care about Islamophobia.

Also what about Theresa May celebrating a literal Nazi admirer?

 

[FigmentOfYerImagination]

Yes I agree, Boris, even in the House, will be difficulty to tie down, he is an ideas man, broad brush, uplands viewing etc., his grasp of political strategy is good, but his ability to think deeply about policy etc and especially before he speaks, is limited.
Boris has been taking lessons from the Donald; stick with your home crowd, keep moving, take control of your own publicity... even when it backfires; give some group (preferably a large group not a minority) a big win, then stand back and take the plaudits.

Boris and Jeremy are the two front runners, nobody else really has a chance, from now on, in the run-in they should both only appear in public together, ditch all the rest, they are fighting for the scraps. The big GE match is Boris v Jeremy. The first debate 'Brexit v NHS' will also be the last debate, so viewing public expect more of the same!

This is what is wrong with your system.

“Ditch all the rest”. Trying to capture the “will of the people” in two polar opposites that nobody likes is why you got such a polarised mess of a political system.

 

[owlo]

Speaking of the EHRC, you didn't respond to my post regarding them the other day.



Since that post, there's been many more prominent Muslim MP's being vocal about the discrimination they've faced from the Tories.
Are you suggesting that unless the EHRC get involved, no racism is taking place? Despite the facts clearly showing that the EHRC simply don't care about Islamophobia.

Also what about Theresa May celebrating a literal Nazi admirer?

I get his point of view. He dislikes tories anyway; the stuff they do doesn't surprise him, it's par for the course. Therefore he doesn't comment.

He sees 'his' ideology being corrupted by Corbyn. The place where this stuff shouldn't happen is being allowed to under this leaders watch.

Oh and I dislike this: "discrimination against Jewish people is given priority over other forms of discrimination - in my opinion"

 

[villain]

I get his point of view. He dislikes tories anyway; the stuff they do doesn't surprise him, it's par for the course. Therefore he doesn't comment.

He sees 'his' ideology being corrupted by Corbyn. The place where this stuff shouldn't happen is being allowed to under this leaders watch.

Oh and I dislike this: "discrimination against Jewish people is given priority over other forms of discrimination - in my opinion"

The whole basis my post is that using the EHRC as the measuring stick as to whether a political party is racist isn't accurate, considering the EHRC have held off on investigating the Tories for the last 5 months, despite giving them a month to respond to multiple claims of Islamophobia.

You can dislike my opinion if you want.

 

[sun_tzu]

Speaking of the EHRC, you didn't respond to my post regarding them the other day.

oh just looked it up
you said the conservatives were asked to submit evidence to the EHRC...
they did...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-islamophobia-muslim-prejudice-investigation

In May, the Muslim Council of Britain filed a complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), urging the watchdog to investigate Islamophobia in the Tory party. Since then, the Tories have submitted evidence and the EHRC – which is separately investigating Labour over antisemitism – says it is still considering whether any action is needed.

If the EHRC find enough evidence to launch a formal investigation (as they did with Labour) then I will fully support that investigation and the subsequent prosecutions (chuck them into a cell next to jezbollah when both investigations are finished)... but as of now they have had the response and so far have not seen enough evidence to trigger the formal investigation - but there may still be ongoing work with that as the article says... all that is known at the moment that alongside Labour the only party to have reached the bar for formal investigation is Labour

so gonna admit you were wrong in saying they had not provided evidence?... or is the guardian just fake news

 

[Honest John]

Blair tends to move in a pragmatic direction to try to neutralise and stage manage popular sentiment.

I think he'd probably:
1. Push hard to reform Free Movement and control immigration (Tony Blair Tells The EU Changing Free Movement Rules Could Stop Brexit)
2. Increase spending on public services and trying to secure private finance for greater investment
3. Push technology and infrastructure investment to improve productivity (https://institute.global/insight/renewing-centre/tony-blair-foreword-technology-many).

Lets not forget that, had it been Blair (or someone like him) during the referendum campaign, this country would almost certainly have voted to remain because he would have campaigned vigorously alongside Cameron et al. We would not be in the mess that we are in now.

Corbyn doesn't give a flying feck about Europe. He is a Bennite and hates it. It is nothing more that an insignificant side-show to his main aim of turning the UK into a Marxist state. And the UK doesn't want to be a Marxist state.

 

[finneh]

But I’m sorry that’s not good enough though is it? You’re basically saying “this wouldn’t work because the managers couldn’t be arsed”. What kind of argument is that when we extend that to the ideology of public vs private. The budget stuff is even worse.....”we can’t run efficiently because they’ll cut our budget”. You personally having to graft and work to get a function lean because you have a competitive market where you can’t increase turnover easily is a good example of capitalism working as it should.

Agreed and on the whole managers can't be arsed unless they have clear, short term, personal incentives. This isn't just a public sector problem, I have managers who do the bear minimum every day. They get "rewarded" with real term salary decreases every single year and active management/training to make them better (my incentive for managing them of course that their increased output increases my salary). The better managers get rewarded with real term increases every year, better company cars (we have 4 members of staff allocated for Model 3's in the next 12 months) as well as bi-annual bonuses that range from £1,000 to £10,000, to share the profit that they bring to the business. I don't offer a flat salary increases across the board with zero or non-incentivised bonuses because by definition that not only creates laziness, it actively encourages it. Why would anyone work their arses off when they get the same increase as someone who merely goes through the motions? Perfect example is I have two members of staff who started 5 years ago both with the same title starting on £28k... One now earns £55k (plus £5k bonus this year) whilst the other is under £30k (£0 bonus)

That's why part of the extensive NHS review should look at how we can integrate competition into the NHS and how we can pay people for their ability/contribution, rather than flat increases set by central government and pay bands that don't account for the fact that one person can contribute twice what another person might contribute despite exactly the same title. What do you think would happen if you were a consultant who was productive to the tune of £200k per annum in the open market, with the maximum NHS pay band being £108k? You'd leave. Likewise if you were a consultant with very minimal service but were exceptionally talented and outperforming someone with 15 years service? You'd be stuck on a 25% lower salary despite greater contributions. Again you'd leave.

It again shows the NHS incentivises their staff to be mediocre. As an NHS employee you have two choices: work to the bare minimum standard and earn the same as everyone else; or leave for the private sector to earn more. The best employee's leave, the worst ones stay and the service perpetually needs more money to provide a lesser service. If I ran my business this way I'd go out of business within 5 years as all my good staff would leave and the ones remaining would get the same pay irrespective of improvement. The NHS though can never go out of business as it merely requests (and invariably receives) more resources.

The solution will be complicated and varied and could be for example paying hospitals for every specific thing that they do (£x per CT scan, £x per MRI, £x per consultation; weighted for less populated regions) whilst giving the patient full choice of which hospital they want to attend; meaning NHS hospitals have to compete with each other to survive, giving full autonomy to the CEO to pay staff according to ability and for CEO pay to be directly related to the turnover of their hospital (bad hospitals would reduce in turnover, meaning the CEO salary would reduce. Good hospitals would grow turnover, possibly open new divisions and CEO salary increases). Online reviews I'm sure would be rife in this environment, with patients avoiding the 1 or 2 star hospitals and asking to be sent to the 4* or 5* ones.

 

[villain]

oh just looked it up
you said the conservatives were asked to submit evidence to the EHRC...
they did...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-islamophobia-muslim-prejudice-investigation

If the EHRC find enough evidence to launch a formal investigation (as they did with Labour) then I will fully support that investigation and the subsequent prosecutions (chuck them into a cell next to jezbollah when both investigations are finished)... but as of now they have had the response and so far have not seen enough evidence to trigger the formal investigation - but there may still be ongoing work with that as the article says... all that is known at the moment that alongside Labour the only party to have reached the bar for formal investigation is Labour

so gonna admit you were wrong in saying they had not provided evidence?... or is the guardian just fake news

But that goes back to my original point - whether or not the EHRC investigate isn’t the only measuring stick as to whether or not a political party is racist. So if you comment on only one form of discrimination and ignore others pending EHRC investigation that doesn’t measure up.
I’ll happily admit that I was wrong to say they hadn’t submitted evidence - I’ll still hold my breath on the EHRC launching an investigation however.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

 

[sun_tzu]

but apparently laura and the BBC is all about the BJ and they are a corrupt biased conservative mouthpiece - im looking forward to the mental gymnastics to justify this

 

[Raven]

I'm really not sure about that characterisation. Is there another major democracy that forcefully expropriates 10% of private company shares for a combination on workers and the state? Is there another major democracy where the government directly sets the wages of 25% of private sector workers (as Labour plans with the minimum wage increase)?

Are you against a minimum wage?

 

[Berbasbullet]

Huh? Not sure what you're saying here.

but apparently laura and the BBC is all about the BJ and they are a corrupt biased conservative mouthpiece - im looking forward to the mental gymnastics to justify this