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

[Fluctuation0161]

Scary stuff.

But don't worry. Vote Tory.

 

[Raven]

Scary stuff.

But don't worry. Vote Tory.

Exactly, he clearly has the best intentions towards the people of Britain.

 

[owlo]

What evidence would help? I could talk about the 70s, Venezuela, Mitterand etc. but I imagine you know all the examples, and just don't think it applies to the modern United Kingdom, which is fair enough. I think differently, I think these are real risks to which many in our country have become complacent.

1. Please explain UK inflationary pressure.
2. Please explain the pressure on government finance.
3. Please explain the 'real risk' you're worried about.

For my family unit, the Labour parties policies would be brilliant. My Mum is a Waspi, she would get £15k. My Dad is much more elderly, and on housing benefit, so I'm sure would be better off. My girlfriend's job pays well under the £80k on which income tax would be raised and there is no prospect of that changing. I work for myself and do absolutely nothing in the UK, I trade purely internationally, so I could easily move if I wanted to if I felt the tax was too high. I have many friends in Hong Kong, Dubai and Australia and family elsewhere who have taken just that step.

I know you find it hard to believe, but not everything is about self-interest. My personal finances would not be much affected by a Labour government, my families would probably hugely benefit. I think that a Corbyn government would lead to much more poverty in the UK over a 20 year time horizon than a Conservative one.

If as you believe, a Labour government would tank the economy, your position is total BS. If doom occurred, inflation etc would wipe out any gains made by the poor/middle class. Unless you are simply saying the poor and middle class would be better off, but the rich not so much?

Additionally if you trade internationally, a large scale shock of the type you predict from Corbyn would affect you. There's literally no way around it even if you totally avoid GBP/Britain.

Your position is so utterly nonsensical that it makes me think it's a concocted narrative.

I don't think they had a choice, the deficit was 7% of GDP and we'd lost a huge amount of the tax base thanks to the financial crisis. The debate in my mind was how fast they cut - they could have done it in a slower and less damaging way.

Of course they had a choice. And scale matters sure. Austerity doesn't increase tax receipts, nor does it improve CAB. Our governments debt is not, never has been [Since wwii at least], and will not for the foreseeable future be a problem.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

it was certainly not antisemitism. It was because he had a funny expression and looked a bit ridiculous - there’s really nothing kore to it than that. Unless of course we think that Rupert Murdock stages the photo..?

If only people gave Jeremy Corbyn that much benefit of the doubt.

You do realise that it's likely that 100s of photos were taken of that moment but only that one shot was used and repeated ad infinitum across the media?

It was a choice that was made. Not one single photo that they had to use because that was the only photo available!

 

[Pink Moon]

So you're saying the big pharma won't raise the prices given the opportunity? The opportunity of course being Brexit.

Nah, American pharmaceutical companies are big hearted and always put humans over cash. Martin Shkreli was obviously just an outlier.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

mate you on the wind up?

just tell me what Corbyn’s Brexit position is - obviously I’ve missed it? Does Corbyn want the U.K. to stay in the EU or not?

The process is clear.
The options were clearly laid out in previous posts. 1) Remain 2) Leave with deal. It goes to a confirmatory vote. Unless you would like a no deal brexit?

You're debating what Corbyn wants when you know very well the Labour position. That is exactly what I said earlier, you attempting to muddy the waters.

I could just as easily bring up the clip of Boris Johnson pre 2016 saying he wants to remain in the EU.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Given that a hung parliament is the most likely way for Labour to gain power, if Labour manage to cobble together a coalition, they'll all be looking to get those 4 freedoms.

Which basically means they would be remaining in the EU without a vote. Remainers will say why leave and the only change is to lose our vote and influence and Leavers will say it's not leaving but remaining under worse circumstances.
That won't sort Brexit.

 

[Sweet Square]

For my family unit, the Labour parties policies would be brilliant. My Mum is a Waspi, she would get £15k. My Dad is much more elderly, and on housing benefit, so I'm sure would be better off. My girlfriend's job pays well under the £80k on which income tax would be raised and there is no prospect of that changing. I work for myself and do absolutely nothing in the UK, I trade purely internationally, so I could easily move if I wanted to if I felt the tax was too high. I have many friends in Hong Kong, Dubai and Australia and family elsewhere who have taken just that step.

I know you find it hard to believe, but not everything is about self-interest. My personal finances would not be much affected by a Labour government, my families would probably hugely benefit. I think that a Corbyn government would lead to much more poverty in the UK over a 20 year time horizon than a Conservative one.

My bad, I thought you were voting tory for your own self interest. Turns out your just as thick as pig shit.

 

[11101]

I'm not sure what that video was supposed to prove? Perhaps you could give me a breakdown?

I don't think state intervention is a bad thing, so more of it won't worry me. If they go too far then they will lose support. But right now, we need as a country, to have certain services run for the good of the people, not the bottom line of investors.

Profit comes from efficiency. Do you really believe state ownership would reduce the cost you pay in any way. I live in a country where all the utilities are in state hands, they're no cheaper than the UK and in many cases the service is much worse.

 

[Maticmaker]

One thing I'm certainly not clear on - what happens if Labour dont get a deal from the EU that meets their requirements?

They will ask the audience!
They will telephone afriend!
Ask the Presenter (sorry PM)… oh but he doesn't know either!

 

[Raven]

Nah, American pharmaceutical companies are big hearted and always put humans over cash. Martin Shkreli was obviously just an outlier.

It's quite staggering the level of wilful ignorance in here. All of a sudden Big pharma isn't a massive blood sucking industry and now they're all about the patients.

 

[Raven]

Which basically means they would be remaining in the EU without a vote. Remainers will say why leave and the only change is to lose our vote and influence and Leavers will say it's not leaving but remaining under worse circumstances.
That won't sort Brexit.

As far as I recall, the deal promised when the referendum was called was a Norway style deal. The leavers have shifter the goalposts it's hard to keep up with what they want.

 

[sammsky1]

Scary stuff.

But don't worry. Vote Tory.

The issue for many voters in this election is having to use their vote to stop the other person getting in, as opposed to being happy and passionate about the person they are voting for. True for Labour, Conservative and LibDem.

The only truly happy voters will be wealthy Leave Tories. Anyone know what segment of the population that is?

 

[Flying high]

Profit comes from efficiency. Do you really believe state ownership would reduce the cost you pay in any way. I live in a country where all the utilities are in state hands, they're no cheaper than the UK and in many cases the service is much worse.

Yes. Because efficiency is not restricted to the private sector. If a decision is taken to increase costs to pay a fair wage, then that can cancel out those who have been taking out payments from dividends and massive director pay.

 

[Berbasbullet]

As far as I recall, the deal promised when the referendum was called was a Norway style deal. The leavers have shifter the goalposts it's hard to keep up with what they want.

I certainly remember Farage wanging on about Norway all the time.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

As far as I recall, the deal promised when the referendum was called was a Norway style deal. The leavers have shifter the goalposts it's hard to keep up with what they want.

The Leavers at the beginning had no idea what it meant and that included Farage. A Norway type deal is with the 4 freedoms but without the customs union so it involves a hard border and thus does not solve the GFA border problem with Ireland.

 

[sammsky1]

My bad, I thought you were voting tory for your own self interest. Turns out your just as thick as pig shit.

Just because he doesn’t agree with you?

 

[Berbasbullet]

Scary stuff.

But don't worry. Vote Tory.

This is terrifying, we can’t allow the government to run without checks and balances.

 

[11101]

Yes. Because efficiency is not restricted to the private sector. If a decision is taken to increase costs to pay a fair wage, then that can cancel out those who have been taking out payments from dividends and massive director pay.

What you will end up with is an overpaid and over inflated workforce with little interest in efficiency. It's what we had before and what we will get again, and it's what much of Europe still has. Ever tried to deal with the public sector in Italy or France?

 

[Ultimate Grib]

 

[Raven]

The Leavers at the beginning had no idea what it meant and that included Farage. A Norway type deal is with the 4 freedoms but without the customs union so it involves a hard border and thus does not solve the GFA border problem with Ireland.

I'm sure that Labour have said that remaining in the customs union would be part of their deal.

 

[redshaw]

As far as I recall, the deal promised when the referendum was called was a Norway style deal. The leavers have shifter the goalposts it's hard to keep up with what they want.

The Norway deal means you pay about 95% of the member fee and have to accept FoM, so no, absolutely not that's what people were voting on or was proposed. People were voting to leave to stop Freedom of Movement and to stop paying into the EU and getting little back.

Had it been a Norway deal proposal it would've been centered around keeping FoM, staying as one of the largest net contributors to the EU but pulling out of the customs union to do some extra trade. There wouldn't be a "project fear" or huge consequences either as the effect of shifting to a Norway deal is not much at all, you pretty much stay in but lose a say. The remain weren't saying we'd crumble over moving to a Norway deal, it was leaving the EU and how catastrophic it would be,

You must be getting confused with other peoples soft brexit plans.

Like what was said before, there's no point in any halfway house, you either stay and be full member, full voting rights and veto on the rebate or you leave fully.

We should just scrap leaving as the 8-10 billion we pay is not that much for the benefits. Our NHS costs over 111 billion a year to run last I looked. Eu fee might sound a lot but it really isn't.

 

[Sweet Square]

Just because he doesn’t agree with you?

Did you read his post ?

He literally lists the positives a Labour government would bring to his family, while also saying it wouldn't even hit his finances too hard but he still won't vote Labour because of.........Venezuela and Marxism!


“He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.''

 

[Grinner]

Is Jez not calling Boris a chicken at every opportunity for ducking the Brillo interview?

 

[Fiskey]

1. Please explain UK inflationary pressure.
2. Please explain the pressure on government finance.
3. Please explain the 'real risk' you're worried about.



If as you believe, a Labour government would tank the economy, your position is total BS. If doom occurred, inflation etc would wipe out any gains made by the poor/middle class. Unless you are simply saying the poor and middle class would be better off, but the rich not so much?

Additionally if you trade internationally, a large scale shock of the type you predict from Corbyn would affect you. There's literally no way around it even if you totally avoid GBP/Britain.

Your position is so utterly nonsensical that it makes me think it's a concocted narrative.



Of course they had a choice. And scale matters sure. Austerity doesn't increase tax receipts, nor does it improve CAB. Our governments debt is not, never has been [Since wwii at least], and will not for the foreseeable future be a problem.

With regards your first two questions are you referring to now, during a Corbyn government or in the 70s? The real risk is that you don't have the money you think you have, especially in a recession, and a socialist government will never cut the public sector. This means that eventually the tax burden becomes to high, the most productive people and companies in your society leave which in turn further hollows out the tax base. It becomes a death spiral.

I don't really understand what you are asking/saying on the next bit.

 

[sun_tzu]

I'm sure that Labour have said that remaining in the customs union would be part of their deal.

Not exactly they have always said "a customs union"

They have spoken about this not needing a border in ni
They have spoken about this allowing them to access all existing EU deals
They have spoken about having the freedom to negotiate our own deals
They have spoken about the UK having a say / veto over future EU deals

Basically it's never going to happen

 

[Raven]

The Norway deal means you pay about 95% of the member fee and have to accept FoM, so no, absolutely not that's what people were voting on or was proposed. People were voting to leave to stop Freedom of Movement and to stop paying into the EU and getting little back.

Had it been a Norway deal proposal it would've been centered around keeping FoM, staying as one of the largest net contributors to the EU but pulling out of the customs union to do some extra trade. There wouldn't be a "project fear" or huge consequences either as the effect of shifting to a Norway is not much at all you pretty much stay in but lose a say.

You must be getting confused with other peoples soft brexit plans.

Like what was said before, there's no point in any halfway house, you either stay and be full member, full voting rights and veto on the rebate or you leave fully.

We should just scrap leaving as the 9-10 billion we pay is not that much for the benefits. Our NHS costs over 111 billion a year to run last I looked. It might sound a lot but it really isn't.

I think you'll find that Norway+ was a notion that got an awful lot of media coverage, you can look it up.

 

[Fiskey]

Did you read his post ?

He literally lists the positives a Labour government would bring to his family, while also saying it wouldn't even hit his finances too hard but he still won't vote Labour because of.........Venezuela and Marxism!


“He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot.''

Rich societies throughout history have always been scornful, thinking that the devastation which happened in the past could never happen to them because they had figured things out. To date every single one of them, from the Greeks to the Romans to the Mongols to various Chinese dynasties have been proven wrong eventually.

We are lucky to live in the time of the richest societies there have ever been, but I don't think we should be so cocky as to throw what has proven to work for what intellectually makes sense. Corbyn and McDonnell are self-proclaimed revolutionaries, and revolutions always end horribly.

 

[11101]

Our governments debt is not, never has been [Since wwii at least], and will not for the foreseeable future be a problem.

That's no reason to ignore it.

We were extremely lucky that after the recession bond yields stayed low because two of our biggest banks weren't heavily affected and we were seen as a relative safe haven for investors. Outside the EU that may not be the case, especially with a far left Labour government that is seen as a risk in its own right.

It doesn't need the country to go bankrupt for it to start causing problems. Yields go up, it will cost more to borrow and every project and investment we want to do gets more and more expensive.

 

[Raven]

Not exactly they have always said "a customs union"

They have spoken about this not needing a border in ni
They have spoken about this allowing them to access all existing EU deals
They have spoken about having the freedom to negotiate our own deals
They have spoken about the UK having a say / veto over future EU deals

Basically it's never going to happen

That's the point of negotiations. What we do know is that a softer version of Brexit is preferable to the EU than a hard one.

 

[owlo]

Profit comes from efficiency. Do you really believe state ownership would reduce the cost you pay in any way. I live in a country where all the utilities are in state hands, they're no cheaper than the UK and in many cases the service is much worse.

I'd say it can do depending on the market. Not that I think Corbyn would be remotely competent or interested enough to do it. Which is why I'm against state ownership for most stuff. Politicians make terrible governance decisions.

Openreach for example would actually work quite well. There's no competition factor, and legislation could be pushed through to operate it at greater efficiency with less red tape if it was truly independent from consumer communications sectors. The central bank could too, possibly. (I'd disagree on that one if pushed for an opinion though)

With regards your first two questions are you referring to now, during a Corbyn government or in the 70s? The real risk is that you don't have the money you think you have, especially in a recession, and a socialist government will never cut the public sector. This means that eventually the tax burden becomes to high, the most productive people and companies in your society leave which in turn further hollows out the tax base. It becomes a death spiral.

I don't really understand what you are asking/saying on the next bit.

Now. Different economies in the 70s are an entirely different profile from the UK in 2019.

Do you think we'll likely ever be in a position where we're unable to pay sovereign debt obligations? Do you think there was a risk of that position in 2010?

I'm far from a Corbynite, and I think his policies will damage the economy. But probably less so or not significantly more so than this tory government has done since 2010. Especially if he manages to stay in the single market. (That alone would offset a load of his mess)

 

[Fiskey]

Of course they had a choice. And scale matters sure. Austerity doesn't increase tax receipts, nor does it improve CAB. Our governments debt is not, never has been [Since wwii at least], and will not for the foreseeable future be a problem.

Do you not remember this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_crisis

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'm sure that Labour have said that remaining in the customs union would be part of their deal.

According to their manifesto they are intending to leave the single market and have a UK wide customs union
I don't think many Labour supporters seem to realise what Labour want to negotiate. Part of their Brexit position in the manifesto is as follows:


Our deal will be based on the principles we have set out over the last two years. It will include: • A permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union, which is vital to protect our manufacturing industry and allows the UK to benefit from joint UK-EU trade deals, and is backed by businesses and trade unions.

• Close alignment with the Single Market – ensuring we have a strong future economic relationship with the EU that can support UK businesses.

Which means they are not trying to negotiate a Norway style deal nor a soft Brexit.

 

[Pink Moon]

Rich societies throughout history have always been scornful, thinking that the devastation which happened in the past could never happen to them because they had figured things out. To date every single one of them, from the Greeks to the Romans to the Mongols to various Chinese dynasties have been proven wrong eventually.

We are lucky to live in the time of the richest societies there have ever been, but I don't think we should be so cocky as to throw what has proven to work for what intellectually makes sense. Corbyn and McDonnell are self-proclaimed revolutionaries, and revolutions always end horribly.

Tell that to the Americans.

 

[Fiskey]

I'd say it can do depending on the market. Not that I think Corbyn would be remotely competent or interested enough to do it. Which is why I'm against state ownership for most stuff. Politicians make terrible governance decisions.

Openreach for example would actually work quite well. There's no competition factor, and legislation could be pushed through to operate it at greater efficiency with less red tape if it was truly independent from consumer communications sectors. The central bank could too, possibly. (I'd disagree on that one if pushed for an opinion though)



Now. Different economies in the 70s are an entirely different profile from the UK in 2019.

Do you think we'll likely ever be in a position where we're unable to pay sovereign debt obligations? Do you think there was a risk of that position in 2010?

I'm far from a Corbynite, and I think his policies will damage the economy. But probably less so or not significantly more so than this tory government has done since 2010. Especially if he manages to stay in the single market. (That alone would offset a load of his mess)

I would say a situation where we are unable to pay sovereign debt obligations is very unlikely in the next 10 years, whatever happens. After that, it is a possibility depending on what the policies had been to that point. If you over spend it always comes back to bite.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Beeb Impartiality Watch

Two bogus statements. Two fact check articles. Two different standards of journalism.

Number one - General election: Labour's £6,000 bill claim fact-checked
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50657736

Sentences before statement is unequivocally disproved = 4.

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

Number two - General election 2019: How many 'new' NHS hospitals are Conservatives building?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50579557

Sentences before statement is unequivocally disproved = it doesn't directly address the lie.

 

[Raven]

According to their manifesto they are intending to leave the single market and have a UK wide customs union
I don't think many Labour supporters seem to realise what Labour want to negotiate. Part of their Brexit position in the manifesto is as follows:


Our deal will be based on the principles we have set out over the last two years. It will include: • A permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union, which is vital to protect our manufacturing industry and allows the UK to benefit from joint UK-EU trade deals, and is backed by businesses and trade unions.

• Close alignment with the Single Market – ensuring we have a strong future economic relationship with the EU that can support UK businesses.

Which means they are not trying to negotiate a Norway style deal nor a soft Brexit.

Well, if it's not a soft Brexit, but works through having close alignment to the single market and a customs union to protect British jobs, it's both softer and more workable than Boris' deal. Given that you've stated it isn't soft, this should satisfy leave voters and remain will be satisfied with their option of remain being represented in a referendum. Seems like a very reasonable way of negotiating the issue.

 

[Fiskey]

Tell that to the Americans.

When I used the word revolution I was thinking more about civil internal conflict, rather than overthrowing a foreign power. At least overthrowing a foreign power has the benefit of giving the country a narrative and binding people together, an internal civil conflict is always divisive.

 

[Mogget]

First you've got Priti Patel saying poverty isn't the government's fault, now this. Incredible that this is the party this country wants leading them.

 

[owlo]

I would say a situation where we are unable to pay sovereign debt obligations is very unlikely in the next 10 years, whatever happens. After that, it is a possibility depending on what the policies had been to that point. If you over spend it always comes back to bite.

Yea, this is where you fundamentally misunderstand how sovereign debt works. I don't blame you really, its not the simplest thing to get your head around.

There is close to zero chance that any G7 economy will default on sovereign debt. They have way too many levers of control for that. Our government debt is tiny anyway (Only Germany have less) and both our interest rate and repayments are at like, record lows; it is a total non issue that's used as a political football.

China is the by far the closest to some sort of meltdown (It's very hard to tell, but they are verifiably a mess and arguably already in meltdown), but we won't see any sort of default from them for sure. Lightning bolts no longer happen.