Labour ?

dayjay posted:

If he stepped down and someone like Andy Burnham stepped in I am sure that they would do far better.

What? With 27 days to go?

And I know you said "someone like" Andy Burnham, but hasn't he stepped down from being an MP so ineligible to be party leader.

Andy Burnham is now Manchester Mayor.  

I know, he's someone with broader appeal though I think, not sure who else I would suggest at the moment

Yvette Cooper would be my choice. A super politician with principles. 

I suspect a lot of people will like the Labour policies but be put off by the leader. Whereas a lot of people like May, and will elect her despite the policies that will do untold harm to the country. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

I suspect a lot of people will like the Labour policies but be put off by the leader. Whereas a lot of people like May, and will elect her despite the policies that will do untold harm to the country. 

I've still got no idea why people like May ... I find her vacuous and without principles.  

But then lots of people tell me I'm out of touch.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Andy Burnham is now Manchester Mayor.  

Oh Manchest-errr, so much to answer for

Saddiq Khan?

I'm not a Labour and I don't really care much for them but I think Labour's current problems stem from when they elected the wrong Miliband.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

It's good, though, to see an attractive alternative. All the Tories seem to be offering is more of the same.It's such a shame that this election will be dominated by Brexit, when it's the economy and public services that really matter. Good schools, decent healthcare, a good train service and police on the beat. The Tories seem happy to let them get inexorably worse, and it's ultimately us that will suffer. 

Brexit is the REASON we are having this election. Nothing else matters at present. If anything else was important, TM wouldn't have called the election. And if anybody other than Corbyn had been leader of the Opposition, she wouldn't have dared to call this election.

Yes and No Don.

Brexit is the reason we are having this election because May knows she has strong support for Brexit and can hoover up the UKIP votes into Tory votes.  But HH is right that its the economy and public services which really matter.  Brexit is just an excuse to squeeze the economy and public services, and immigration is a handy hook to hang all the problems on - and hook which the Tories can say was caused by Labour in the 90s, and is the cause of over stretched NHS - and which Labour have no good response to.  Labour's only chance (and its a slim chance though apparently Ladbrooks lowered the odds from 200/1 to 50/1 of a labour win) is to concentrate not on Brexit (IMO).

And if the PLP hadn't started their coup just when Labour were on the up she wouldn't have dared call the election either. Though on the calling of an election: I'm between a rock and a hard place as I argued at the time she should be required to call an election...

Ah, there was an element of irony (probably sarcasm) in my post. When I said "nothing else matters" I was referring to TM's point-of-view. She needed a bigger majority to push Brexit through without the hindrance of any audit/obstruction/obfuscation/scrutiny that her small majority would face.

Of course she is going to add in a few little "extras" wherever she thinks that will add a few more voters.

Yes, I also considered an election should have been held back in September or thereabouts, but it would have been on the basis of a free vote with candidates indicating whether they would enforce Brexit or not and whether any enforcement would be "hard" or "soft". Things have changed since then.

Eloise posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I suspect a lot of people will like the Labour policies but be put off by the leader. Whereas a lot of people like May, and will elect her despite the policies that will do untold harm to the country. 

I've still got no idea why people like May ... I find her vacuous and without principles.  

But then lots of people tell me I'm out of touch.

You need to explain,  without principles? 

Untold harm to the country,  you sound like someone out of 'Dad's Army'

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I suspect a lot of people will like the Labour policies but be put off by the leader. Whereas a lot of people like May, and will elect her despite the policies that will do untold harm to the country. 

I've still got no idea why people like May ... I find her vacuous and without principles.  

But then lots of people tell me I'm out of touch.

You need to explain,  without principles? 

Untold harm to the country,  you sound like someone out of 'Dad's Army'

Without principles, just that.  She does and says what it takes to gain and keep power.  She doesn't do what is best for the UK.

It wasn't me who said "untold harm" but I'll bite...

• Hard brexit at any cost while threatening and acting belligerently to those she has to deal with;
• continued austerity targeting the lower parts of society;
• no plan / actions to tackle housing issues;
• refusal to recognise there are problems with funding in education and just sticks with her Grammar Schools fixation; 
• refusal to recognise there are issues with the NHS;
• oh ... and Hard Brexit at any cost because of course all the above are the fault of the EU not the UK Gov.

Time to put some soothing music on.......

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I suspect a lot of people will like the Labour policies but be put off by the leader. Whereas a lot of people like May, and will elect her despite the policies that will do untold harm to the country. 

I've still got no idea why people like May ... I find her vacuous and without principles.  

But then lots of people tell me I'm out of touch.

You need to explain,  without principles? 

Untold harm to the country,  you sound like someone out of 'Dad's Army'

Without principles, just that.  She does and says what it takes to gain and keep power.  She doesn't do what is best for the UK.

It wasn't me who said "untold harm" but I'll bite...

• Hard brexit at any cost while threatening and acting belligerently to those she has to deal with;
• continued austerity targeting the lower parts of society;
• no plan / actions to tackle housing issues;
• refusal to recognise there are problems with funding in education and just sticks with her Grammar Schools fixation; 
• refusal to recognise there are issues with the NHS;
• oh ... and Hard Brexit at any cost because of course all the above are the fault of the EU not the UK Gov.

I was only asking you to explain the No Principles question, the ' untold harm was directed at HH.

The first role of Government is to keep the nation secure - physically and economically.   At a time when the Country is laden with debt on a completely unprecedented scale and Brexit can only make that worse - Corbyn your lacklustre behaviour during the referendum played no small part in this - and yet all the parties are trying to out do each other over how much they are going to spend.   Is there no fiscal responsibility?

The Strat (Fender) posted:

The first role of Government is to keep the nation secure - physically and economically.   At a time when the Country is laden with debt on a completely unprecedented scale and Brexit can only make that worse - Corbyn your lacklustre behaviour during the referendum played no small part in this - and yet all the parties are trying to out do each other over how much they are going to spend.   Is there no fiscal responsibility?

The national debt is at an all time high in numerical terms, but not as a percentage of GDP. It was much higher, predictably enough, after WW2, and also after Napoleonic times.

In the aftermath of WW2, it took time to bring it down, of course, but that wasn't done though spurious analogies to household spending and ever more rampant austerity. It was done through investment and policies which sought to raise wages across the board and GDP per capita rather than brute GDP measures. Including setting up the NHS.

In terms of average real wage growth since the economic crash, only Greece has done worse than the UK.

Despite how most people seem to see it, fiscal responsibility has been at a premium since 2010, and fiscal competence even more so. The real irresponsible thing was falling for Osborne's brilliance, not as a chancellor, but as a director of political narrative in making people believe the story he told about why he did what he did.

Dave - I'm not defending the current administration or any previous for that matter.  

wenger2015 posted:

dayjay posted:

 I spent decades working in public sector companies, including the NHS, and they are wasteful in the extreme, full of red tape and politics and at the mercy of the unions.  

Exactly.... I would describe it as being unprofessional,

If these organisations were spending their own monies it would be somewhat different. 

So would you two like Tesco to run the NHS?

Cdb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

dayjay posted:

 I spent decades working in public sector companies, including the NHS, and they are wasteful in the extreme, full of red tape and politics and at the mercy of the unions.  

Exactly.... I would describe it as being unprofessional,

If these organisations were spending their own monies it would be somewhat different. 

So would you two like Tesco to run the NHS?

Maybe not Tesco, but Waitrose might be preferable to career NHS or local gov't 'managers' whose eye is on their pension, not necessarily the efficient and effective running of an overcomplicated organisation.

#oversimplification

Labour's manifesto includes nationalizing the railways. Why do they think this is a good idea ? OK, I know it "sounds good" and a lot of voters will applaud it, but............

Network Rail is already a government organisation, managing the spend on operating, maintaining, renewing and enhancing the railway infrastructure ie track, tunnels, bridges stations, signalling, electrification etc) £35 bn over the current five year Control Period.

The Train Operating Companies and Freight Operating Companies have to bid for their franchises at frequent and regular intervals of about 5 years (it does vary). Franchises are awarded to the operator who contracts to deliver the Government's specified time-table (mainly) and to pay the most to the gov for this privilege (or requires the smallest subsidy for difficult franchises). OK East Coast handed their franchise back early and the Gov ran it successfully for a few years, but that's a limited experience.

The rolling stock (trains and carriages) is owned by various private companies (quite a few banks) and would cost the gov billions to buy or replace.

Overall, I'm not entirely convinced re-nationalisation is such a clever move.

SKDriver posted:

Cdb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

dayjay posted:

 I spent decades working in public sector companies, including the NHS, and they are wasteful in the extreme, full of red tape and politics and at the mercy of the unions.  

Exactly.... I would describe it as being unprofessional,

If these organisations were spending their own monies it would be somewhat different. 

So would you two like Tesco to run the NHS?

Maybe not Tesco, but Waitrose might be preferable to career NHS or local gov't 'managers' whose eye is on their pension, not necessarily the efficient and effective running of an overcomplicated organisation.

#oversimplification

Despite all the insults here aimed at supposedly wasteful, greedy and selfish public service staff, the fact is that the NHS is recognised as one of the most efficient health services in the world. The US system has been probably amongst the most wasteful in that it is run primarily for the benefit of the insurance companies and private health providers. 

Clive

Clive, no one said anything, or at least I certainly didn't, about public service staff being wasteful, greedy or selfish.  I did say that public services are wasteful and often badly managed by that is not the same thing.  I was a public service member of staff for decades and my wife still is and we have both worked in the NHS so I can vouch for its staff, and for the fact  that it is wasteful and badly run and trying to deliver an impossible task.

I'm not sure to whom we sell most arms, but Saudi must be high on our list. We have been selling Lightnings, Tornadoes, and now Typhoons to Saudi under the various Al Yamamah projects since before I can remember, and I can remember back to 1968. Probably one of our best export deals ever.

Wouldn't get too many votes in Preston or Blackpool.

But I guess the guys up in Barrow and Aldermaston (in other words around here) are relieved.

Still, its all hypothetical IMHO, Corbyn and his manifesto can say what it likes. It won't happen.

dayjay posted:

Clive, no one said anything, or at least I certainly didn't, about public service staff being wasteful, greedy or selfish.  I did say that public services are wasteful and often badly managed by that is not the same thing.  I was a public service member of staff for decades and my wife still is and we have both worked in the NHS so I can vouch for its staff, and for the fact  that it is wasteful and badly run and trying to deliver an impossible task.

I was referring particularly to SKDriver who I quoted - his comment about such staff being more interested in their pensions than efficiency was insulting - and certainly implied they were greedy, selfish and wasteful.

Clive

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Dave - I'm not defending the current administration or any previous for that matter.  

No, fair enough. I wouldn't want to impugn anyone's reputation by implying anything like that

I was just trying to point out that austerity doesn't necessarily (or even often) equal fiscal responsibility, and likewise that govt spending doesn't necessarily equal profligacy. It's in the details, as ever.

It's just that most people, myself included - and maybe not you, have difficulty understanding that, because of how dominant Osborne's household budget narrative has become. And, of course, because of how complicated economics really is when it's not distilled into distorted sound bites.

Dave***t posted:

I was just trying to point out that austerity doesn't necessarily (or even often) equal fiscal responsibility, and likewise that govt spending doesn't necessarily equal profligacy. It's in the details, as ever.

My understanding and knowledge is limited, but I believe many if not most recognised economic models actually suggest that austerity should be followed in times of growth and spend and invest in times of recession (both in moderation of course).

Essentially austerity measures take money out of the economy which is the opposite of what's desired.

In addition, capital projects / investment should be assessed separate from day to day spending.

Osboure ... knows nothing about economics and not even great wallpaper!