Labour ?

wenger2015 posted:

According to the latest polls, it's not looking good for labour for June 8th, will they survive?? 

The latest polls, while not irrelevant, were (I think) all taken prior to the announcement of a GE.

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

According to the latest polls, it's not looking good for labour for June 8th, will they survive?? 

The latest polls, while not irrelevant, were (I think) all taken prior to the announcement of a GE.

Do you think anything has changed? 

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

According to the latest polls, it's not looking good for labour for June 8th, will they survive?? 

The latest polls, while not irrelevant, were (I think) all taken prior to the announcement of a GE.

Do you think anything has changed? 

Well *I* think things have changed.  TM has shown her true turn coat qualities, shown how much she is in the pocket of the Daily Mail and has shown she has no statesman like qualities... as for other people, faced with the reality that there is going to be a GE rather than it being an abstract question yes I think some people's opinions will change.  For the positive or negative (for labour) I'm not sure but I think there will be a shifting of opinion over the next 50 days.

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

According to the latest polls, it's not looking good for labour for June 8th, will they survive?? 

The latest polls, while not irrelevant, were (I think) all taken prior to the announcement of a GE.

Do you think anything has changed? 

Well *I* think things have changed.  TM has shown her true turn coat qualities, shown how much she is in the pocket of the Daily Mail and has shown she has no statesman like qualities... as for other people, faced with the reality that there is going to be a GE rather than it being an abstract question yes I think some people's opinions will change.  For the positive or negative (for labour) I'm not sure but I think there will be a shifting of opinion over the next 50 days.

I don't really see what other choice she had, obviously each step along the way to brexit would have been more and more difficult....

As for being statesman like, I'm not sure what you mean? 

By the way I'm not for her or against her, I'm just generally disillusioned.... 

wenger2015 posted:

I don't really see what other choice she had, obviously each step along the way to brexit would have been more and more difficult....

As for being statesman like, I'm not sure what you mean? 

By the way I'm not for her or against her, I'm just generally disillusioned.... 

Every step being more and more difficult ... you mean facing the opposition so that she has to get a deal which is good for more than just her personal backers?  A deal which wasn't just designed to hold together a fracturing Tory party.  Her choice was to accept the democracy that is parliament, rather than trying to subvert it at every step!  

She already had enough of a majority to vote through any legislation if she got the support of her own MPs, so debate and opposition was pretty hollow.

But what do I mean by "statesmanlike"?  

Statesmanlike is when you actually answer a question with a response rather than ducking every question answered by saying "yeah ... but no one likes Corbyn so up yours!"  Have you listened to PMQs recently, have you hear her actually respond to a question or acknowledge criticism?

Statesmanlike is when you have a plan you put to the people ... rather than stating "Do what I think best because the alternative is worse".  A plan which you are then prepared to debate and argue for ... rather than having a "its my way or the highway" attitude.

Statesmanlike would be standing up for your fellow elected officials and saying "No, they are not Saboteurs, they are doing their elected duty".  Or standing up for the judges when they are called traitors to the people.  Its saying "Yes, we respect the freedom of the press but you are wrong in what you are saying" ... as opposed to tacitly giving them approval to print anything they want.

Statesmanlike (in summary) is doing what is right, not what is easy or gains you more power.  Its standing up for your principles, but realising you also have to compromise and prioritise what is most important.  Its considering the nation as a whole.  Its sticking to decisions you make until there is a GOOD reason to change them.

ELOISE,

Ok, I see where you are coming from, The only problem is the attributes you describe as being necessary,  I can't see in anyone ....those are almost unachievable expectations... 

Politicians in general seem to say one thing and do another... 

I would almost suggest honesty in a politcian is perceived as a u-turn, a weakness... perhaps that's because of the media or the public expecting to much.... 

But is Mrs May a better leader then Corbyn would be? If I had to choose I would say yes....

LOLabour? Stick a fork in them, they're done. My prediction is they will be annihilated and the party will split after the election. The Blairites will do an SDP and join up with the Liberal clown party. Corbyn can then lead a rump communist party.  At the end of the day Corbyn has zero interest in being a Prime Minister. At heart he is a protest leader. You only have to look at the way he cosied up to terrorists to see how unsuitable the clown is for high office. For someone who has never voted Labour and will never vote Labour their demise can't come soon enough.

wenger2015 posted:

 

But is Mrs May a better leader then Corbyn would be? If I had to choose I would say yes....

The choice is between the worst of the worst (IMO) ... to be honest I'd rather have Blair, Brown, Cameron even Major than either of the options.

But May is a better leader, unfortunately (IMO) her policies (assuming they are not much different from now) are going to cause greater divide and lead the country worse off.  Corbyn is the wrong man, but with the (generally) the right policies.

Overall (unlike you) I believe that politicians are generally honest.  I believe that in the past we have had politicians who would fit my criteria for "statesmanlike" ... not all the time but generally.  

wenger2015 posted:

ELOISE,

Ok, I see where you are coming from, The only problem is the attributes you describe as being necessary,  I can't see in anyone ....those are almost unachievable expectations... 

Politicians in general seem to say one thing and do another... 

I would almost suggest honesty in a politcian is perceived as a u-turn, a weakness... perhaps that's because of the media or the public expecting to much.... 

But is Mrs May a better leader then Corbyn would be? If I had to choose I would say yes....

I find it hard to think of a worse leader than Corbyn; Michael Foot perhaps, Arthur Scargill, General Custer on a bad day, but that's about it.  He will kill the Labour Party in order to pander his ego and push his own, out dated, narrow, 70s beliefs to a public who have by and large moved on, and as a result we will be stuck with a Conservative government with sod all opposition for a decade.  

If we are lucky the Labour Party will split with the far left under Corbyn and a new party based on labour values fighting for the central ground but it will be too late for this election even if it does happen.  Momentum have had a far greater negative impact on the Labour Party than Militant tendency ever had and there are no labour political giants to fight them this time. A truly depressing state of affairs.

dayjay posted:

wenger2015 posted:

ELOISE,

Ok, I see where you are coming from, The only problem is the attributes you describe as being necessary,  I can't see in anyone ....those are almost unachievable expectations... 

Politicians in general seem to say one thing and do another... 

I would almost suggest honesty in a politcian is perceived as a u-turn, a weakness... perhaps that's because of the media or the public expecting to much.... 

But is Mrs May a better leader then Corbyn would be? If I had to choose I would say yes....

I find it hard to think of a worse leader than Corbyn; Michael Foot perhaps, Arthur Scargill, General Custer on a bad day, but that's about it.  He will kill the Labour Party in order to pander his ego and push his own, out dated, narrow, 70s beliefs to a public who have by and large moved on, and as a result we will be stuck with a Conservative government with sod all opposition for a decade.  

If we are lucky the Labour Party will split with the far left under Corbyn and a new party based on labour values fighting for the central ground but it will be too late for this election even if it does happen.  Momentum have had a far greater negative impact on the Labour Party than Militant tendency ever had and there are no labour political giants to fight them this time. A truly depressing state of affairs.

I think you could well be right, maybe Labour have got what they deserve......they have never recovered from Mr Brown's infamous promise of ' no more boom and bust'..

wenger2015 posted:

dayjay posted:

wenger2015 posted:

ELOISE,

Ok, I see where you are coming from, The only problem is the attributes you describe as being necessary,  I can't see in anyone ....those are almost unachievable expectations... 

Politicians in general seem to say one thing and do another... 

I would almost suggest honesty in a politcian is perceived as a u-turn, a weakness... perhaps that's because of the media or the public expecting to much.... 

But is Mrs May a better leader then Corbyn would be? If I had to choose I would say yes....

I find it hard to think of a worse leader than Corbyn; Michael Foot perhaps, Arthur Scargill, General Custer on a bad day, but that's about it.  He will kill the Labour Party in order to pander his ego and push his own, out dated, narrow, 70s beliefs to a public who have by and large moved on, and as a result we will be stuck with a Conservative government with sod all opposition for a decade.  

If we are lucky the Labour Party will split with the far left under Corbyn and a new party based on labour values fighting for the central ground but it will be too late for this election even if it does happen.  Momentum have had a far greater negative impact on the Labour Party than Militant tendency ever had and there are no labour political giants to fight them this time. A truly depressing state of affairs.

I think you could well be right, maybe Labour have got what they deserve......they have never recovered from Mr Brown's infamous promise of ' no more boom and bust'..

That's the point for all I relish democracy and alternative politics the fact for me is that Labour will always leave a financial car crash of epic proportions - and that's regardless of whether it's old labour (79), new labour (2010 and it wasn't only the banking crisis they had already let borrowing spiral out of anything like sensible control), and now Corbyn. I'm not sure how this will play out - will Corbyn's new-age populism take hold over the next 50 days or will Labour be condemned to the political dustbin?

The Strat (Fender) posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I think you could well be right, maybe Labour have got what they deserve......they have never recovered from Mr Brown's infamous promise of ' no more boom and bust'..

That's the point for all I relish democracy and alternative politics the fact for me is that Labour will always leave a financial car crash of epic proportions - and that's regardless of whether it's old labour (79), new labour (2010 and it wasn't only the banking crisis they had already let borrowing spiral out of anything like sensible control), and now Corbyn. I'm not sure how this will play out - will Corbyn's new-age populism take hold over the next 50 days or will Labour be condemned to the political dustbin?

What are you smoking?

Borrowing spiralling out of control (and public borrowing in and of itself isn't an issue) is what the Tory party have been doing for the last 7 years ... there have been years of austerity and still borrowing is spiralling out of control.  What will be their excuse in 2022?

The Conservative governments over the last 70 years or so have ALWAYS had average borrowings higher than Labour governments.

Just shows the reality distortion field that surrounds the Conservatives.

People like the Conservatives because they lower taxes.  People are selfish!

Eloise posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I think you could well be right, maybe Labour have got what they deserve......they have never recovered from Mr Brown's infamous promise of ' no more boom and bust'..

That's the point for all I relish democracy and alternative politics the fact for me is that Labour will always leave a financial car crash of epic proportions - and that's regardless of whether it's old labour (79), new labour (2010 and it wasn't only the banking crisis they had already let borrowing spiral out of anything like sensible control), and now Corbyn. I'm not sure how this will play out - will Corbyn's new-age populism take hold over the next 50 days or will Labour be condemned to the political dustbin?

What are you smoking?

Borrowing spiralling out of control (and public borrowing in and of itself isn't an issue) is what the Tory party have been doing for the last 7 years ... there have been years of austerity and still borrowing is spiralling out of control.  What will be their excuse in 2022?

The Conservative governments over the last 70 years or so have ALWAYS had average borrowings higher than Labour governments.

Just shows the reality distortion field that surrounds the Conservatives.

People like the Conservatives because they lower taxes.  People are selfish!

I'm not smoking anything.  I'm on record elsewhere as saying this Government are appalling although in fairness deficit reduction has been their priority and of course the 2 things are very different.  Equally they've actually increased the taxation burden.   But the problem is we seem to have arrived at a point where the State can't be allowed to say no to provide everything.  Austerity is a complete and utter myth - state spending is at record levels and Ministers boast about it.

Yes inded record levels of borrowing.. Apart from paying off their supporters with tax breaks etc, wha is this gov doing with this money?

Don't go with the usual paying after the  last Labour Gov.. Almost in balance when they left

Shrinking the State is what Tories do. Look at what's happened since 2010. 

BigH47 posted:

Yes inded record levels of borrowing.. Apart from paying off their supporters with tax breaks etc, wha is this gov doing with this money?

Don't go with the usual paying after the  last Labour Gov.. Almost in balance when they left

'Almost in balance' I assume that's why the famous note was left by Alastair Darling 'sorry no more money left'

Hungryhalibut posted:

Shrinking the State is what Tories do. Look at what's happened since 2010. 

For comparison, the total US government spending at all levels, federal, state and local peaked at 41% of GDP after the recession several years ago and dropped to 34% in 2015 all with a Democrat as President. It will be interesting to see if that changes with the new President (I dare not speak his name!).

wenger2015 posted:

BigH47 posted:

Yes inded record levels of borrowing.. Apart from paying off their supporters with tax breaks etc, wha is this gov doing with this money?

Don't go with the usual paying after the  last Labour Gov.. Almost in balance when they left

'Almost in balance' I assume that's why the famous note was left by Alastair Darling 'sorry no more money left'

Perhaps humour is just a little too subtle?

wenger2015 posted:

BigH47 posted:

Yes inded record levels of borrowing.. Apart from paying off their supporters with tax breaks etc, wha is this gov doing with this money?

Don't go with the usual paying after the  last Labour Gov.. Almost in balance when they left

'Almost in balance' I assume that's why the famous note was left by Alastair Darling 'sorry no more money left'

Actually the note was left by Liam Byrne. 

And no one remembers the note left by Tory Reginald Maudling to his Labour successor James Callaghan in 1964: "Good luck, old cock ... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

BigH47 posted:

Yes inded record levels of borrowing.. Apart from paying off their supporters with tax breaks etc, wha is this gov doing with this money?

Don't go with the usual paying after the  last Labour Gov.. Almost in balance when they left

'Almost in balance' I assume that's why the famous note was left by Alastair Darling 'sorry no more money left'

Actually the note was left by Liam Byrne. 

And no one remembers the note left by Tory Reginald Maudling to his Labour successor James Callaghan in 1964: "Good luck, old cock ... Sorry to leave it in such a mess."

That's interesting, I was not aware of that incident.........( l am obviously too young to remember)

Does anybody seriously believe that anyone (rich, Middle or less) should actually pay more tax - direct, indirect or otherwise?  I note that Labour have indicated that £70k is somehow rich -although true to their duplicitous selves  they are sort of backtracking now - well really.  You've done well mate, now we are going to do a grab and redistribute it on your behalf.   Oh and if you choose to privately educate your children we"ll screw you for that as well. 

Oh and something else can all politicians, and I mean all,  stop referring to "ordinary people" - it's patronising.  

Yes, absolutely.

Does anyone think that the NHS should be starved of cash (one of numerous examples)?

£70k is rich, compared to the vast majority of incomes. And it somewhat notably would include MPs.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Does anybody seriously believe that anyone (rich, Middle or less) should actually pay more tax - direct, indirect or otherwise?  I note that Labour have indicated that £70k is somehow rich -although true to their duplicitous selves  they are sort of backtracking now - well really.  You've done well mate, now we are going to do a grab and redistribute it on your behalf.   Oh and if you choose to privately educate your children we"ll screw you for that as well. 

Oh and something else can all politicians, and I mean all,  stop referring to "ordinary people" - it's patronising.  

I'm actually astounded by your question!

Do you mean that you think you are paying exactly the amount of tax you should pay, that you are paying too much or that you shouldn't be paying any tax at all?

To answer your rather strange question; Yes - I strongly believe that many people should be paying significantly more in taxes than they do at the moment. I am also of the mind-set that I would gladly pay more income tax (on the assumption that everyone else would do so as well) if that would mean that the NHS would be adequately funded or if it meant that my additional tax revenue went to appropriate and deserving causes such as well directed overseas aid.

I think we ALL pay too much tax although in fairness the coalition did take very significant steps to remove many at the lower end by very significantly increasing the thresholds.

With regard to the NHS - of which for the record I am a user with no private health care provision although I do have Denplan - I would be interested to be advised of what would be adequate funding?  Because along with education year-on-year more money is put in and seemingly there is always a funding crisis around the corner.  Now of course there is all manner of smoke and mirrors with regard to NHS funding - what the Gov't passes to NHS England rather than the actual budget of Dep't of Health, and true to say real-growth is slowing against increasing demand but nonetheless surely there comes a point when the required level is met.

As to 70K - not rich if you're attempting to move up to a semi-detached property in the Home Counties.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

I think we ALL pay too much tax although in fairness the coalition did take very significant steps to remove many at the lower end by very significantly increasing the thresholds.

With regard to the NHS - of which for the record I am a user with no private health care provision although I do have Denplan - I would be interested to be advised of what would be adequate funding?  Because along with education year-on-year more money is put in and seemingly there is always a funding crisis around the corner.  Now of course there is all manner of smoke and mirrors with regard to NHS funding - what the Gov't passes to NHS England rather than the actual budget of Dep't of Health, and true to say real-growth is slowing against increasing demand but nonetheless surely there comes a point when the required level is met.

As to 70K - not rich if you're attempting to move up to a semi-detached property in the Home Counties.

Very very simply my view is that what the NHS has needed for a generation is:

a) Investment. This is not the same as wads of cash. That means investment in sustainable services, efficiency, service development and 'transformation' (sorry, current buzzword). The NHS has been kicked around as an ideological football and totally lacked the real long term strategic planning an organisation of this scale needs. Free it from political whims and changes of direction. Don't just tip money into certain politically sensitive services when the red lights start to flash.

b) A consistent and properly planned workforce strategy for medical and allied professions. This is an utter mess at the moment.

c) An honest debate (national not local) about what we want an NHS to cover, and what we do not and or cannot afford. Universal coverage, free at point of access to every single treatment for every single condition that may or may not be effective or useful or value for money is unsustainable in every modern economy. We have to be explicit about expectations. Every Govt has fudged this, passing the buck to all and sundry. Healthcare can be a bottomless pit, the more money you give it the more it will spend. A degree of limitation focusses attention on treatments of best value and efficacy.

bruce