Jump to content
dylanisabaddog

Pinkun General Election thread (ID required)

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, horsefly said:

We can also expect the number of Reform UK Ltd candidates exposed as racists, misogynists, and anti-Semites to increase exponentially (even Farage has admitted they've had no time to vet candidates). Personally I'll be very surprised if Reform UK Ltd.'s election day vote gets close to its current poll rating once it has been subject to the scrutiny other parties have endured as a normal part of an election campaign.

The Reform candidate for South Norfolk was mysteriously replaced recently. Anyone know why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

Not only will they merge but they'll accept Laurence Fox, Joey Barton, Paul Golding. Jayden Fransen etc. as members.

The dream cabinet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

 

I've also been saying for the last two or three years, that Reform will win the next general election after this one. 

Most of the people who vote Reform will be dead by then

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The Reform candidate for South Norfolk was mysteriously replaced recently. Anyone know why? 

I missed that one. But I'm prepared to speculate that it will involve one, some, or all of the following:

Racism

Anti-Semitism

Misogyny

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The Reform candidate for South Norfolk was mysteriously replaced recently. Anyone know why? 

He wasn’t a racist ? 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

To you maybe, but a retired uni lecturer isn’t exactly representative of the political opinions of the country at large. Although granted that particular cohort does seem to have considerable sway in the upper echelons of both major parties.

That's the funny thing Fen. I might agree HF by occupation is not exactly representative of the public at large but it seems to me  equally neither are you. You seem to be some sort of 1970s unreformed Labourite with a slight chip on your shoulder about anybody with a degree - which these days is incredibly common (is it 50% of the younger generation). 

I also saw some stats that in the under 50s - the Tory's are in FIFTH place!

The polling would seem to indicate that the public at large are far more left of centre on general topics than your (or Reforms) current position - even on Brexit and the 'culture' wars - indeed if you ignore the splits in both left and right (Reform/Tory vs Labour/LD/Green) its very clear. 

It seems to me 'age' and associated education is what's really at work here. There will always be an unredeemable core far-right wing vote same as a similar core left-wing vote. I'd say 15% each (Corbynites vs Farage's). Then we have the typical Tory's now not representing almost anybody but OAPs but I guess still appealing to their rational elderly base but who can't stomach Farage or yet leap to LD/Labour! SKS and Labour have clearly occupied the centre-ground and with the LDs look set to stay.

In short - I think HF views are in fact generally representative of the modern public at large today.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Starmer's plan for neoliberal driven growth won't work

Starmer's growth plan is not neo-liberal. Amongst other things:

1. They have rejected the idea, held for far too long that public investment "crowds out" private investment.

2. They have committed to investing through borrowing, stating correctly, that it is different to borrowing for current spending

3. The fiscal rules they have adopted are subtly different as a consequence of the above. (Only day-to-day spending and tax revenues need balance over the economic cycle)

4. They have signalled a greater involvement of the state in natural monopolies by its pledge to renationalise Rail over time, as franchises end (to avoid purchase costs).

5. Although initially diminished, they have pledged to spend an extra £23.7 billion to decarbonise. They have indicated that this would grow alongside economic growth.

6. There has been a strong commitment to working with local mayors etc for govt (both local and govt) to work proactively for regional development

7. Etc - they are several others

This is not to say that it will work, but the idea that Labour's economic policy is nonsense and uninformed: it is less so than New Labour's economic plans. Some may think that this is a good thing, others that it is bad, but it is not the same.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Well b back said:

He wasn’t a racist ? 

Possibly - or did he believe in human rights? (Mind you that would make it hard for him as a Tory candidate too!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

There is some truth in this but you only have to look at trends across Europe to know that these types of parties are on the rise despite their unsavoury nature. My bet is the Tories cling on to second place but by a worryingly thin margin.

I've also been saying for the last two or three years, that Reform will win the next general election after this one. 

Starmer's plan for neoliberal driven growth won't work and Labour will get booted out after one term.

The problems are systemic and require a radical shift to the left. It will come, as it did in 1945 but we're in for a bumpy ride before we get there.

I'm happy to say I don't share your pessimism. 

1. The UK has an interesting record of moving in the opposite political direction to Europe (e.g. Thatcher)

2. Reform UK Ltd relies heavily on the (admittedly perverse) draw of Nigel Farage. As he demonstrated at the beginning of this campaign his commitment to UK politics is paper thin; having said he believed getting his rapist mate elected as president was much more important than the UK election. His commitment to ANY cause corresponds entirely to his calculation of the personal advantage it will afford him. Let's assume he gets elected in Clacton. The idea he would be happy to throw his lot in as a hardworking backbench MP is for the birds. He has already made it pretty clear that he sees Reform UK Ltd as nothing more than an entryist route into becoming leader of the Tory Party. However, he is despised by much of the Tory Party, only finding support among the far right loons most likely to be voted out on July 4th. He will rapidly lose interest and spend his time in pursuit of more lucrative entertainment. He's getting old, and is getting impatient to fill his pockets.

3. Reform UK Ltd is likely to collapse under increased public scrutiny. The party is largely populated by bigoted ne'er-do-wells, as is being evidenced by the increasing number of their candidates being exposed as repugnant extremists of various kinds. 

4. The current list of pledges made by Reform UK Ltd are pure economic fantasy that will be exposed as such as soon as their manifesto is published. Somehow they manage to outdo the lunacy of Trussonomics. 

5. There is simply no recognisable political talent within Reform UK. When you have to resort to dragging out Anne Widdecombe from the grave then you are in deep trouble. Have you seen the average age of a Reform UK meeting?

6. Reform UK Ltd is just yet another reformulation of previous incarnations of single issue pressure groups (UKIP, Brexit Party). Now we are out of the EU this particular version is focussed upon Immigration as the cause of all our woes. It is utter BS of course, and like UKIP and the Brexit Party has no coherent political vision for running the country.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Badger said:

4. They have signalled a greater involvement of the state in natural monopolies by its pledge to renationalise Rail over time, as franchises end (to avoid purchase costs).

Whilst I am glad of the policy in itself, it annoys me a little bit. They are acknowledging these types of monopolies are not healthy or fair on the electorate; however, they are only prepared to go for the one that they can do on the cheap. And it's for a sector that doesn't directly impact most people. A 2018 study found that 40% of Britons had not stepped foot on a train in over 12 months and only 20% had undertaken more than 10 journeys. Quite a bit out of date, but given train usage hasn't got back to pre-Covid levels (and might not ever), it's an issue that won't have a massive impact on the electorate. If I was to be cynical, I'd suggest it gets disproportionate attention due to its impact on Londoners and our London-centric media and politics.

Water companies enjoy similar monopolies so as well as an economically unfair system that doesn't even stand up to capitalist principles in the competition is a key tenet of the system, it is also an industry destroying one of our nation's most treasured assets, whilst regularly pouring billions of pounds of UK cash into Australian and Canadian pension funds. Nationalising water is eminently sensible. My old man is a Daily Mail reading, Brexit-supporting retiree who spent his entire career in the water sector, both pre and post privatisation at Severn Trent and Anglian Water. Even he agrees that privatisation was a rank failure that benefited only executives and largely offshore pension and investment firms. Yet Labour are just coming out with soft measures like holding back bonuses (watch salaries rocket) a potentially unenforceable threat of criminal charges and severe fines (that already exist).

Show some backbone and do the right thing; it's bizarre that our human need for water has been opened up for profit. No one else does it other than Chile and part of the USA. Let that sink in. Even large swathes of capitalist capital of the world USA refuse to open up their water supply to private industry. Yet we do it, and sacrifice our rivers, seas and, if you live in Devon, our health, to allow it to happen.

Nationalise water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just listened to an hour of Nigel Farage on Radio 5. It was the usual rubbish but really shocked me was the exte6of his climate change denial. Nicky Campbell made him look so stupid it was embarrassing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Whilst I am glad of the policy in itself, it annoys me a little bit. They are acknowledging these types of monopolies are not healthy or fair on the electorate; however, they are only prepared to go for the one that they can do on the cheap. And it's for a sector that doesn't directly impact most people. A 2018 study found that 40% of Britons had not stepped foot on a train in over 12 months and only 20% had undertaken more than 10 journeys. Quite a bit out of date, but given train usage hasn't got back to pre-Covid levels (and might not ever), it's an issue that won't have a massive impact on the electorate. If I was to be cynical, I'd suggest it gets disproportionate attention due to its impact on Londoners and our London-centric media and politics.

Water companies enjoy similar monopolies so as well as an economically unfair system that doesn't even stand up to capitalist principles in the competition is a key tenet of the system, it is also an industry destroying one of our nation's most treasured assets, whilst regularly pouring billions of pounds of UK cash into Australian and Canadian pension funds. Nationalising water is eminently sensible. My old man is a Daily Mail reading, Brexit-supporting retiree who spent his entire career in the water sector, both pre and post privatisation at Severn Trent and Anglian Water. Even he agrees that privatisation was a rank failure that benefited only executives and largely offshore pension and investment firms. Yet Labour are just coming out with soft measures like holding back bonuses (watch salaries rocket) a potentially unenforceable threat of criminal charges and severe fines (that already exist).

Show some backbone and do the right thing; it's bizarre that our human need for water has been opened up for profit. No one else does it other than Chile and part of the USA. Let that sink in. Even large swathes of capitalist capital of the world USA refuse to open up their water supply to private industry. Yet we do it, and sacrifice our rivers, seas and, if you live in Devon, our health, to allow it to happen.

Nationalise water.

I wouldn't disagree at all in principle, it is a question of priorities. Renationalising the industries will cost 10s of billions which could be spent elsewhere and more productively. Regulation may achieve some, if not all of the same ends and in time, will reduce the price of the companies.

You can't do everything and you need to consider the cost of the foregone alternative (opportunity cost). We have seen the consequences of unfunded spending (and unfunded tax cuts) on the bond market and interest rates, which have a highly negative impact on peoples' lives. In short, if you spend £20 billion on x, you have to cut it from a, b, and/or c.*

* I accept that there are arguments for increasing the debt burden, but this is not sensible in the current interest rate environment and of course, there is MMT, which is fascinating but unproven.

Edited by Badger
Added extra detail
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I have just listened to an hour of Nigel Farage on Radio 5. It was the usual rubbish but really shocked me was the exte6of his climate change denial. Nicky Campbell made him look so stupid it was embarrassing. 

If you go back a few pages and look for @Nuff Said article on Tufton Street you'll see why he's denying climate change. Nothing to do with making Britain better and all about him and his mates making a lot of money. Charlatan. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Herman said:

If you go back a few pages and look for @Nuff Said article on Tufton Street you'll see why he's denying climate change. Nothing to do with making Britain better and all about him and his mates making a lot of money. Charlatan. 

Isn't it the people from Tufton Street that now own this forum? Or am I hopelessly wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I wouldn't disagree at all in principle, it is a question of priorities. Renationalising the industries will cost 10s of billions which could be spent elsewhere and more productively. Regulation may achieve some, if not all of the same ends and in time, will reduce the price of the companies.

You can't do everything and you need to consider the cost of the foregone alternative (opportunity cost). We have seen the consequences of unfunded spending (and unfunded tax cuts) on the bond market and interest rates, which have a highly negative impact on peoples' lives. In short, if you spend £20 billion on x, you have to cut it from a, b, and/or c.*

* I accept that there are arguments for increasing the debt burden, but this is not sensible in the current interest rate environment and of course, there is MMT, which is fascinating but unproven.

(Most of) This, but also in the context of the level of debate so far in this election, you can imagine the “unfunded spending/£xxxx tax rises for families” accusations if this was a policy. Don’t drop the ming vase!

The Tories ****ed up, privatisation was clearly a huge mistake but re-privatisation has to be filed with hundreds of other “nice-to-haves but too expensive” right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Herman said:

If you go back a few pages and look for @Nuff Said article on Tufton Street you'll see why he's denying climate change. Nothing to do with making Britain better and all about him and his mates making a lot of money. Charlatan. 

Absolutely spot on but surely Farage, of all people, could come up with some slightly more plausible lies than that load of utter b0llocks that he spouted this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Isn't it the people from Tufton Street that now own this forum? Or am I hopelessly wrong? 

I don't know. It would explain some of the posters that have turned up lately. 😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

I wouldn't disagree at all in principle, it is a question of priorities. Renationalising the industries will cost 10s of billions which could be spent elsewhere and more productively. Regulation may achieve some, if not all of the same ends and in time, will reduce the price of the companies.

You can't do everything and you need to consider the cost of the foregone alternative (opportunity cost). We have seen the consequences of unfunded spending (and unfunded tax cuts) on the bond market and interest rates, which have a highly negative impact on peoples' lives. In short, if you spend £20 billion on x, you have to cut it from a, b, and/or c.*

* I accept that there are arguments for increasing the debt burden, but this is not sensible in the current interest rate environment and of course, there is MMT, which is fascinating but unproven.

I would love to believe that Starmer is creating a regulatory environment that will substantially devalue the private water firms ahead of a program of state acquisition, but I can't see it happening.

The idea that it would be prohibitively expensive is a nonsense peddled by vested interests. A University of Greenwich study found it could be done for less than £15 billion (and would put significant assets on the government books too, you said something about Labour accepting that borrowing to invest is different to borrowing for current spending). There is another study out there that says it will cost £90 billion, but that report was funded by, you guessed it, the private water companies. Another study concludes that nationalising the sector will pay for itself in between 6 and 9 years.

Furthermore, we have Court of Appeal precedent that allows state acquisition of companies without shareholder compensation; "The court would only interfere if it were to conclude that the state's judgement as to what is in the public interest is manifestly without reasonable foundation". The mountains of debt the water companies have piled up since Thatcher's idiotic sale of the industry alone is enough to argue a public interest in state intervention. The destruction of our rivers and coast makes public interest in it conclusive. And the barrier is "without reasonable foundation". So the Court of Appeal has set a precedent to asset seizure, and outside of the EU the only further recourse the private water companies could appeal to is the Supreme Court.

Like I said, there is a reason that no one else has been bat**** stupid enough to do what we have done to our water companies, bar Chile and a few American outlier authorities. How long do we continue with this stupidity? Until the rivers run brown?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The problem is that we do just consistently borrow more than we get in revenue. You can get away with that if you're a reserve currency like the US dollar, but you can't in our shoes. As it stands, the continuing functioning of our state is entirely dependent on whether international investors deem the return on investment exceeds the risk of the investment failing.

I think there's a strong argument for states to participate in the private sector as investors in the private sector. For example, doesn't it make a lot of sense for the state to take a large stake in pharmaceuticals given they are massive consumers of pharmaceuticals? Same with defence: We need weapons for national security, so a defence industry that makes weapons for our own defence and sells weapons abroad is good for us. And the state having a stake gives a return for the taxpayer that at the very least subsidises the cost to the taxpayer.

The state does enjoy excellent rates for borrowing. It makes sense to take advantage of that to start digging out of the massive debt situation while it's still possible.

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The problem is that we do just consistently borrow more than we get in revenue. You can get away with that if you're a reserve currency like the US dollar, but you can't in our shoes. As it stands, the continuing functioning of our state is entirely dependent on whether international investors deem the return on investment exceeds the risk of the investment failing.

I think there's a strong argument for states to participate in the private sector as investors in the private sector. For example, doesn't it make a lot of sense for the state to take a large stake in pharmaceuticals given they are massive consumers of pharmaceuticals? Same with defence: We need weapons for national security, so a defence industry that makes weapons for our own defence and sells weapons abroad is good for us. And the state having a stake gives a return for the taxpayer that at the very least subsidises the cost to the taxpayer.

The state does enjoy excellent rates for borrowing. It makes sense to take advantage of that to start digging out of the massive debt situation while it's still possible.

 

Completely agree, and I suppose Great British Energy (one of the few bits of Labour's manifesto that I, and seemingly many others, are genuinely enthusiastic about) is based on similar thinking but by definition it is a startup which won't produce a return anything like as quickly as investing in profitable, going concerns as you suggest above.

Its something that many western, paticularly European, countries have been doing for years and it seems to work pretty well for them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I have just listened to an hour of Nigel Farage on Radio 5. It was the usual rubbish but really shocked me was the exte6of his climate change denial. Nicky Campbell made him look so stupid it was embarrassing. 

Farage is smart enough not to get into a scientific debate whilst heavily hinting  that we should disagree with it.

I like Farage's straight talking, it's a massive contrast to the SKS tactic of waffle until the question is forgotten, but he doesn't adopt such an approach on this topic, its almost like he knows its the most extreme position he holds and he is out of step with most people.

If only there was a green party smart enough to stay in its lane and appeal across the board, that way farage might lose influence on the issue and be forced to retreat from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Who'd've thought we'd be looking back at the Gordon Brown era as the 'good old days'.

Image

And even after all this Labour is polling at about the same percentage vote as they received in 2019. So there has been no major rush into the Labour party but a collapse of the Conservative vote as punishment for not carrying out Conservative policies but instead trying to be Labour-lite for the past 14 years

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The problem is that we do just consistently borrow more than we get in revenue. You can get away with that if you're a reserve currency like the US dollar, but you can't in our shoes. As it stands, the continuing functioning of our state is entirely dependent on whether international investors deem the return on investment exceeds the risk of the investment failing.

I think there's a strong argument for states to participate in the private sector as investors in the private sector. For example, doesn't it make a lot of sense for the state to take a large stake in pharmaceuticals given they are massive consumers of pharmaceuticals? Same with defence: We need weapons for national security, so a defence industry that makes weapons for our own defence and sells weapons abroad is good for us. And the state having a stake gives a return for the taxpayer that at the very least subsidises the cost to the taxpayer.

The state does enjoy excellent rates for borrowing. It makes sense to take advantage of that to start digging out of the massive debt situation while it's still possible.

 

I think you will find the government already works extremely close with major industries such as pharmaceuticals, defence, aerospace, energy etc. What governments should do is ring fence those industries that are vital to national security to prevent foreign organisations from buying them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

I think you will find the government already works extremely close with major industries such as pharmaceuticals, defence, aerospace, energy etc. What governments should do is ring fence those industries that are vital to national security to prevent foreign organisations from buying them out.

Haha definitely a guy without a ****ing life, aren't you? "I think you will find blah blah blah". Such a ****ing poindexter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

And even after all this Labour is polling at about the same percentage vote as they received in 2019. So there has been no major rush into the Labour party but a collapse of the Conservative vote as punishment for not carrying out Conservative policies but instead trying to be Labour-lite for the past 14 years

I actually agree with you up to part of the sentence I've highlighted but if you really believe that is the reason for the punishment the Tories then you are beyond deluded.

Austerity was a Conservative policy (and the exact opposite of what Labour had done in starting a successful recovery to the global recovery), which has broken all our public services.

Brexit was a Conservative policy.........

The UK's shambolic Covid response was more Conservative incompetence than policy, although it did include giving away billions to their mates and  party donors, so I guess that does count as policy.

Crashing the economy by giving unfunded and unaffordable tax cuts to the wealthy was a Conservative policy which has made us all poorer.

Finally net migration to the UK (670,000 ish?) last year, way above anything we ever seen before, is a direct result of the Conservative visa policy.

No idea what you actually mean by Labour-lite but the huge damage inflicted on the country for the last 14 years is entirely the responsibility of Conservative policies being implemented by ever increasingly incompetent Conservative Prime Ministers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

I think you will find the government already works extremely close with major industries such as pharmaceuticals, defence, aerospace, energy etc. What governments should do is ring fence those industries that are vital to national security to prevent foreign organisations from buying them out.

Working closely isn't the same as having a financial stake that generates a return on investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, yellow hammer said:

I think you will find the government already works extremely close with major industries such as pharmaceuticals, defence, aerospace, energy etc. What governments should do is ring fence those industries that are vital to national security to prevent foreign organisations from buying them out.

Yes, they do but mainly in the sense of providing hidden (and sometimes not hidden) subsidies for which neither they or the taxpayer receives any return - LYB suggestion makes far better economic sense and whilst it wouldn't give the government any control of the companies, it would give the influence that any major shareholder in a private company has, unlike the subsidy approach which is just free money for no return whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, horsefly said:

When Lee Anderson was made deputy chair for the Tories in February 2023 he explicitly stated they would make stoking the culture wars the chief election tactic. The Tories have been pumping out that BS ever since. Labour refused to engage, and have remained 20+ points ahead ever since. So what does that tell us about your claim that this is a weak point for Labour, and your further implied claim to represent "the political opinions of the country at large"? Likewise, the Rwanda deal, that every poll tells us has damaged the Tories NOT Labour.

As I said before, your claims remain utter tripe.

Said a fair time ago on here that all we'd get from this pathetic shower would be culture wars, and looks like I was proven absolutely bang on the money.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...