Current Affairs The General Election

[zzr45]

What is in the Lib Dem manifesto?

• Rail fares for commuters and season ticket holders to be frozen for the next five years
• All trains to be electric or hydrogen-powered by 2035
• A new target for 80% of UK energy to come from renewable sources by 2030
• A £10,000 grant for every adult in England to put towards education and training over 30 years
• 35 hours of free childcare for children aged two to four, or from nine months for working parents
• Legalising the sale of cannabis to over 18s
• Replacing business rates for companies with a levy based on land value
• A higher minimum wage at "times of normal demand" for those on zero-hours contracts
• £11bn for mental health services over five years, including on 24-hour support
• A new tax on gambling companies to fund the treatment of problem gambling

Some good in there, agree with the legalisation of cannabis really, the green targets seem more realistic and the threat of Brexit disappearing is good. Things like the education grant (which would almost be worthless) and the zero hour/minimum wage thing just seem utterly left field and useless or unenforceable.

 

[davids]

Say Jeremy Corbyn had been the Home Secretary for six years, during which time he slashed some 20,000 police jobs taking us back to 1970s levels of per capita policing.

Let's say he also slashed the UK Border Agency budget so that over a million people per month were coming and going through UK airports without being properly checked.

Let's say by virtue of an extremely self-serving EU referendum non-campaign he managed to get into 10 Downing Street, where he kept up his agenda of cutting the UK security services and border agency.

Then there's a home-grown terrorist attack by a known Islamist fanatic in a city where Corbyn had cut the police budget by £157 million.
Let's say Jeremy Corbyn "lost" files on an internal pedophile ring.
Let's say he wanted to take the homes from the elderly.
Let's say he cut 30% of your disabled benefit.
Let's say he signed an arms deal with the (ISIS-funding) Saudis worth millions.
Let's say he wanted to take away your child's free school meal.
Let's say he forced NHS staff to use food banks.
Let's say he made so many cuts to the NHS that people are suffering waiting for ambulances and A&E doctors.
Let's say he went against doctors, nurses, teachers, fire fighters, the armed forces...
Let's say he took away funding for University for upcoming doctors and nurses.
Let's say after all these cuts there's still a deficit and he'd missed every target he'd set himself for reducing it.
What would you have to say about Jeremy Corbyn under these circumstances?
And why are they not saying those things about Johnson, May, Cameron, and the Tory Government right now?
Since 2010, successive Tory and Lib Dem coalition Governments have done all this . Why are you not voting to bring these parties down?

 

[catcherintherye]

As others have said, these are the kind of things that need challenging in these debates and in the media. As much as the Tories can pretend the reverse on corporate rates cut is to pay for these giveaways, it's totally clear its to help 'fund' Brexit.

The politics of this country is a total sh*tshow if we are honest. Both parties are in lala-land and the Conservatives manage to edge it by default. If this is another Labour loss then there needs to be massive changes, McDonnell and his ilk need removing from policy making posts.

It wasn't meant as a barb, but in truth I listen to all of the parties (BXP saying 200n on spending outside of London), Greens on 90Bn for UBI, Lib Dems spending on various things and feel all of their spending pledges are unimaginable within the existing economic orthodoxy. I'm not sure it's a solely Labour problem.

As for Labour and policy making, I suspect the genie is out of the bottle now. I have no idea how a more fiscally appropriate Labour party really fits into the current political discourse.

To me what they need to do is probably get a cleaner face to administer these policies. Someone who hasn't got the historical baggage of Corbyn, and probably smooth some of the edges on certain things.

I mean even the FT and it's editorship are openly saying we need a major reverse in policy. So I can't see things going back to how they were. If there were one mistake the Labour moderates have made it's thinking that would be the end result of this.

If you look at say Keir Starmer, himself very much a Labour moderate he has put himself in a prime position post this election to lead, because he has recognised the importance to move with the times but maybe mitigate against some of the crazier aspects of it.

 

[zzr45]

It wasn't meant as a barb, but in truth I listen to all of the parties (BXP saying 200n on spending outside of London), Greens on 90Bn for UBI, Lib Dems spending on various things and feel all of their spending pledges are unimaginable within the existing economic orthodoxy. I'm not sure it's a solely Labour problem.

As for Labour and policy making, I suspect the genie is out of the bottle now. I have no idea how a more fiscally appropriate Labour party really fits into the current political discourse.

To me what they need to do is probably get a cleaner face to administer these policies. Someone who hasn't got the historical baggage of Corbyn, and probably smooth some of the edges on certain things.

I mean even the FT and it's editorship are openly saying we need a major reverse in policy. So I can't see things going back to how they were. If there were one mistake the Labour moderates have made it's thinking that would be the end result of this.

If you look at say Keir Starmer, himself very much a Labour moderate he has put himself in a prime position post this election to lead, because he has recognised the importance to move with the times but maybe mitigate against some of the crazier aspects of it.

Oh don't worry mate I know it wasn't. As you say in the lead up to the election money seems to be able wherever you look according to the parties, again as a result voters are getting burned out by it across all parties.

It's an interesting one really, as you say Keir Starmer seems like an absolute shoe in and is someone that has always impressed me whenever I've heard him on the radio. The question is if he appeals to the Momentum crowd or if they will back another candidate. There's been whispers of Rayner, which without being harsh has trainwreck written all over it.

The whole of political discourse really needs overhauling in this country. The media are totally to blame - even things like the debate last night are dragging us towards a crap version of politics. We live in a world now where all manner of people are celebrated for their diversity, yet in our politics we seem to want to restrict the field to two choices.

 

[catcherintherye]

The TV debates hold an important, though not essential significance and it's worth noting that. However Clegg won the 2010 election and Cameron lost it largely off the back of the 2010 performances. In 2015 Cameron won the election off the back of them, and for Corbyn/ May in 2017 they played a big part.

To me they were always a big risk for Johnson. If I was advising him I would have told him to avoid at all costs. Not just because I don't think he's particularly good at them but also because he is so far ahead of Corbyn he really doesn't need to take the risk.

There is a 60 point gap between them in polls (we are led to believe the biggest of any election time post 1979 when such polling began).It may even be bigger than the one to him and May in 2017(though May was more popular than Johnson). I do have some queries with the weightings on polls that I've covered numerous times, but you also have to accept Corbyn is broadly unpopular outside of a dedicated base.

What this means for a debate is that anything other than a hammering for Corbyn is a bad result for Johnson, as people will be moving to a more favourable position for Corbyn. The fact that he's drawn with Yougov, and with ITV (a poll that had about 15 times the number of people) he won decisively to an 80-20 split (albeit ITV's poll was not weighted in any way). The comments I've seen, that people are saying it would beard to vote Tory after the Johnson performance will be worrying for Johnson and re-enforce the idea it was a big mistake.

Yougov will not just ask 100 people what they think. They will apply fairly stringent criteria. They will have upwards of 16% more Conservative to Labour supporters. They'll have over 50% of their audience who support the Brexit Party or the Conservatives. They may well have also ensured Corbyn has a minus 60 in terms of the weightings before the debate (so for every hundred people get 80 who don't like him/ think he's doing a bad job). For him to come through that with a 50/50 draw is a remarkable achievement.

While I don't think it means he will overnight go to equal with Johnson on all questions, I do suspect it will be a catalyst for that gap closing. It needed to close, as frankly it's hard to think of any party getting close to victory with such low numbers. The only ones as close to that far away have got between 160-205 seats at elections. That Johnson is not walking away with the election, especially with a pact between the only other pro-Brexit right wing Party is indicative of how poor he is.

So yes, certainly opportunities for Corbyn. I'll put more on the substance of the debate below in a separate post, as I sense this one is quite long. Essentially though, a score draw for Corbyn is much better, as for Johnson he really ought to be beating a guy with a minus 60 reputation.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

What is in the Lib Dem manifesto?

• Rail fares for commuters and season ticket holders to be frozen for the next five years
• All trains to be electric or hydrogen-powered by 2035
• A new target for 80% of UK energy to come from renewable sources by 2030
• A £10,000 grant for every adult in England to put towards education and training over 30 years
• 35 hours of free childcare for children aged two to four, or from nine months for working parents
• Legalising the sale of cannabis to over 18s
• Replacing business rates for companies with a levy based on land value
• A higher minimum wage at "times of normal demand" for those on zero-hours contracts
• £11bn for mental health services over five years, including on 24-hour support
• A new tax on gambling companies to fund the treatment of problem gambling

Some good in there, agree with the legalisation of cannabis really, the green targets seem more realistic and the threat of Brexit disappearing is good. Things like the education grant (which would almost be worthless) and the zero hour/minimum wage thing just seem utterly left field and useless or unenforceable.

Addressing the UK skills shortage in the economy is pretty far from leftfield, although you could argue whether a 10grand grant is the best way to go about it. It's the yellow party so it's all academic anyhow, but I like that they've addressed that issue. Plenty of us will be having to retrain when we're 60, afterall.

Education gives exponential returns when you get it right early - high quality school and university / college learning sets the mind for life. So intuitively that would seem to be the place to concentrate resources.

 

[catcherintherye]

Oh don't worry mate I know it wasn't. As you say in the lead up to the election money seems to be able wherever you look according to the parties, again as a result voters are getting burned out by it across all parties.

It's an interesting one really, as you say Keir Starmer seems like an absolute shoe in and is someone that has always impressed me whenever I've heard him on the radio. The question is if he appeals to the Momentum crowd or if they will back another candidate. There's been whispers of Rayner, which without being harsh has trainwreck written all over it.

The whole of political discourse really needs overhauling in this country. The media are totally to blame - even things like the debate last night are dragging us towards a crap version of politics. We live in a world now where all manner of people are celebrated for their diversity, yet in our politics we seem to want to restrict the field to two choices.

I've doen a bit of canvassing, and what I get the sense of is complete disbelief towards all politicians. It's an ugly mood at present. I think there's is culpability on all sides. I know I got some stick the other week for saying about how well Farage does, but one thing I think he does well is come across as a pretty reasonable bloke who seems relatively down to earth. It may all be a lie (though having known people who have met him they say he's actually very personable) but it shows just how little respect we have left for politicians.

I'll throw another name in their, again not someone I agree with, and someone who was widely condemned as a joke PM, but John Major is another level to the current crop of Tories in terms of ability, dignity and respect. A lad from an ordinary background who did exceptionally well for himself, but believed in doing it the hard way rather than essentially trying to cheat to get where you want on the back of the school you went to.

As for Labour, I agree. My partner can't stand Raynor, I like her but think it's much too soon. There is a train of thought for Labour that thinks it's problems are resolved if they get someone with a northern accent leading them. I'm not convinced on that and feel the problems probably go a little deeper.

A big part of the problem is there is a battle within a battle happening within Labour. On the continent that battle is happening outside of SD parties (you think of Die Linke/SPD, Left Bloc/SD, PSD/Podemos, Syriza/Pasok, Melanchon/PS etc). The difficulty in Labour is it is happening within the organisation, and there is a legitimate argument as to who really owns the franchise and who the party belongs too. The unions, the members or the PLP? I'm not sure any of them are really willing to back down, or alternatively any have the willingness and capability to provide some lead.

I am very open to the idea that Labour should have a more moderate leader, but there is a question as to what "moderate" means in the contemporary context? I'm not sure it's an easy answer, but my instinct tells me re-hashing aspects of what Blair did in government as seems to be proposed isn't a massively satisfactory answer. That's probably the circle the PLP have to square if they want to be in a position where they can credibly lead again.

Blair answered that. He was then very good at communicating it through the party and ultimately to the wider populace. If you were going to learn anything from Blair they could do a lot worse than starting with the above. Serious political answers to concrete questions, as opposed to a 2nd rate re-enactment group.

 

[zzr45]

Addressing the UK skills shortage in the economy is pretty far from leftfield, although you could argue whether a 10grand grant is the best way to go about it. It's the yellow party so it's all academic anyhow, but I like that they've addressed that issue. Plenty of us will be having to retrain when we're 60, afterall.

Education gives exponential returns when you get it right early - high quality school and university / college learning sets the mind for life. So intuitively that would seem to be the place to concentrate resources.

£10k doesn't seem like a huge amount to spend is more what I was getting at. As you say people will have to retrain, especially with automation coming up. Will 10k really cover it for most people, plus any you might spend to enhance the career you're currently in?

 

[catcherintherye]

The TV debates hold an important, though not essential significance and it's worth noting that. However Clegg won the 2010 election and Cameron lost it largely off the back of the 2010 performances. In 2015 Cameron won the election off the back of them, and for Corbyn/ May in 2017 they played a big part.

To me they were always a big risk for Johnson. If I was advising him I would have told him to avoid at all costs. Not just because I don't think he's particularly good at them but also because he is so far ahead of Corbyn he really doesn't need to take the risk.

There is a 60 point gap between them in polls (we are led to believe the biggest of any election time post 1979 when such polling began).It may even be bigger than the one to him and May in 2017(though May was more popular than Johnson). I do have some queries with the weightings on polls that I've covered numerous times, but you also have to accept Corbyn is broadly unpopular outside of a dedicated base.

What this means for a debate is that anything other than a hammering for Corbyn is a bad result for Johnson, as people will be moving to a more favourable position for Corbyn. The fact that he's drawn with Yougov, and with ITV (a poll that had about 15 times the number of people) he won decisively to an 80-20 split (albeit ITV's poll was not weighted in any way). The comments I've seen, that people are saying it would beard to vote Tory after the Johnson performance will be worrying for Johnson and re-enforce the idea it was a big mistake.

Yougov will not just ask 100 people what they think. They will apply fairly stringent criteria. They will have upwards of 16% more Conservative to Labour supporters. They'll have over 50% of their audience who support the Brexit Party or the Conservatives. They may well have also ensured Corbyn has a minus 60 in terms of the weightings before the debate (so for every hundred people get 80 who don't like him/ think he's doing a bad job). For him to come through that with a 50/50 draw is a remarkable achievement.

While I don't think it means he will overnight go to equal with Johnson on all questions, I do suspect it will be a catalyst for that gap closing. It needed to close, as frankly it's hard to think of any party getting close to victory with such low numbers. The only ones as close to that far away have got between 160-205 seats at elections. That Johnson is not walking away with the election, especially with a pact between the only other pro-Brexit right wing Party is indicative of how poor he is.

So yes, certainly opportunities for Corbyn. I'll put more on the substance of the debate below in a separate post, as I sense this one is quite long. Essentially though, a score draw for Corbyn is much better, as for Johnson he really ought to be beating a guy with a minus 60 reputation.

As for the debate itself, as has been discussed in other posts I do think Corbyn needs to be more ambitious, aggressive and specific towards Johnson. I understand it's not his style but actually Johnson is pretty disliked, and comes across as quite arrogant and dislikeable. When Johnson acknowledged that reducing corporation tax doesn't bring in more money he should have been all over that. He should have been saying Johnson has been giving his rich mates handouts while the rest of us suffered.

Likewise there has to be more focus on their current record. They can't really defend that. 9 years in government and this is the mess we are left in. Schools underfunded, hospitals with record waiting times, children living in poverty, food banks exponentially soaring, police numbers cut, armed forces numbers cut, fire service numbers cut, violent crime rising etc. I don't think Labour can or should be too subtle on this.

Johnson does very well on Brexit. It's his one key area. He answers that well. Corbin needs a better answer for this. I'd personally state that his offer is no different to Cameron in 2015, and like him he will decide which way he votes on the finish of the negotiations. It's worth noting if he's called indecisive, that Johnson had written two separate speeches on the day he came out in favour of Leave. He chose that for narrow political gain not for the overall good of the country, and that he refuses to engage in such game playing.

He answered questions on the monarchy very well. He made people laugh. He understood the sub text of the question (and how it was about Prince Andrew). Johnson missed all of that and said they (and therein he) is "beyond revoke". Politically clumsy and something that should be used at the next debate.

So lots to work on for Corbyn, but a good performance. I'm sure the polls will close following that, the question will be by how much (as Labour do need some momentum.)

 

[catcherintherye]

£10k doesn't seem like a huge amount to spend is more what I was getting at. As you say people will have to retrain, especially with automation coming up. Will 10k really cover it for most people, plus any you might spend to enhance the career you're currently in?

I actually quite like the 10k idea. A big issue around the tuition fees being free was always well what about those who don't go to university. I think having money available for all to train is quite a good policy.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

I'll throw another name in their, again not someone I agree with, and someone who was widely condemned as a joke PM, but John Major is another level to the current crop of Tories in terms of ability, dignity and respect. A lad from an ordinary background who did exceptionally well for himself, but believed in doing it the hard way rather than essentially trying to cheat to get where you want on the back of the school you went to.

As a non-partisan, I always found Major to be a moderate, decent man doing his best. He never resorted to personal attacks and the historic view of him is from Bad Al Campbell's various hatchet jobs on him down the years.

 

[Blue 1]

As a non-partisan, I always found Major to be a moderate, decent man doing his best. He never resorted to personal attacks and the historic view of him is from Bad Al Campbell's various hatchet jobs on him down the years.

He had an affair with Edwina Currie and his government was bloody awful.

It just seems good in retrospect given the state of today's. He was a louse.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

I've doen a bit of canvassing, and what I get the sense of is complete disbelief towards all politicians. It's an ugly mood at present. I think there's is culpability on all sides. I know I got some stick the other week for saying about how well Farage does, but one thing I think he does well is come across as a pretty reasonable bloke who seems relatively down to earth. It may all be a lie (though having known people who have met him they say he's actually very personable) but it shows just how little respect we have left for politicians.

I'll throw another name in their, again not someone I agree with, and someone who was widely condemned as a joke PM, but John Major is another level to the current crop of Tories in terms of ability, dignity and respect. A lad from an ordinary background who did exceptionally well for himself, but believed in doing it the hard way rather than essentially trying to cheat to get where you want on the back of the school you went to.

As for Labour, I agree. My partner can't stand Raynor, I like her but think it's much too soon. There is a train of thought for Labour that thinks it's problems are resolved if they get someone with a northern accent leading them. I'm not convinced on that and feel the problems probably go a little deeper.

A big part of the problem is there is a battle within a battle happening within Labour. On the continent that battle is happening outside of SD parties (you think of Die Linke/SPD, Left Bloc/SD, PSD/Podemos, Syriza/Pasok, Melanchon/PS etc). The difficulty in Labour is it is happening within the organisation, and there is a legitimate argument as to who really owns the franchise and who the party belongs too. The unions, the members or the PLP? I'm not sure any of them are really willing to back down, or alternatively any have the willingness and capability to provide some lead.

I am very open to the idea that Labour should have a more moderate leader, but there is a question as to what "moderate" means in the contemporary context? I'm not sure it's an easy answer, but my instinct tells me re-hashing aspects of what Blair did in government as seems to be proposed isn't a massively satisfactory answer. That's probably the circle the PLP have to square if they want to be in a position where they can credibly lead again.

Blair answered that. He was then very good at communicating it through the party and ultimately to the wider populace. If you were going to learn anything from Blair they could do a lot worse than starting with the above. Serious political answers to concrete questions, as opposed to a 2nd rate re-enactment group.

Milliband's time looking more and more like a colossal missed opportunity to rebuild the party, in hindsight. The man himself was always an iffy choice to put before the electorate, but he could have at least got the party moving back left in a clear, strategic direction that would have completely marginalised JC and his band of time-wasters.
It seemed like a really confused opposition from my recollection (Miliband's), didn't resolve the issue of taking on big strategic themes versus the tactics of trying to beat the Tories over meat and potato issues. Pretty ineffective and created the environment for JC and McDonell to take charge.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

He had an affair with Edwina Currie and his government was bloody awful.

It just seems good in retrospect given the state of today's. He was a louse.

I don't judge anybody's private life, none of my business. His government was something of a disaster as he was trying to hold together a wildly divided cabinet in the midst of an economic crisis. I didn't say he led a good government, I said he was a decent and principled man. Solid mid-table of post war PMs, for me.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Milliband's time looking more and more like a colossal missed opportunity to rebuild the party, in hindsight. The man himself was always an iffy choice to put before the electorate, but he could have at least got the party moving back left in a clear, strategic direction that would have completely marginalised JC and his band of time-wasters.
It seemed like a really confused opposition from my recollection (Miliband's), didn't resolve the issue of taking on big strategic themes versus the tactics of trying to beat the Tories over meat and potato issues. Pretty ineffective and created the environment for JC and McDonell to take charge.

Miliband lacked the capacity for strategic thought as can be seen in two key decisions. Firstly, his plan to cap utility prices on a given date, in which he totally failed to grasp that every company would simply increase their prices by the forecast amount for the period of the freeze plus some extra for security
Secondly, allowing anyone with a spare 3 quid to vote in labour's leadership election.