General Election Pre-Thread (4 of 6)

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, meregreen said:

That would be a dangerous time for the country too. They would likely morph into a Nationalist borderline Fascist Party, much like Le Pens mob in France. I’m no Tory, but at least the Tories I grew up with had a veneer of one nation respectability. 

It sets Labour the challenge to ensure those far right views don't gain more support then before the next election in 2029. Over those five years they have to improve the lot of the many by improving living standards and improving public services especially the NHS and social care. They do that then it stops people looking to the extremes for answers.

Far right parties have existed my whole life and you'll always have racists and xenophobes that will support them. You suppress those parties though by ensuring the masses have decent living standards and opportunity/provide decent public services/provide a decent welfare safety net. The Tories have failed with/decimated all that over the last 14 years and we now see the result with people looking towards the extremes for answers. 

This next parliament is massive in terms of the direction of the country over the next 20+ years. Labour get it right and show that sensible centre/centre left government is the answer then it sets the direction of travel for the years that follow. Get it wrong and it allows an opportunity for people like Farage to dupe people into believing that the far right are the answer. 

 

Edited June 15 by markavfc40

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

And the labour party is still here? Thats why when i read the tories are finished after this election  they wont be.

Both the two major parties manage ti stick no matter what.

Correct. That this version of the Tories has gone completely mad and deserves to be exterminated is one thing, but there is a huge chunk of the nation that would vote for a centre right party, if there was one. So while there are that many potential voters there will be a party that seeks to represent them after the current throbbing not rights are banished from memory.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Stanley Baldwin's 470 in 1931 says otherwise. 

Bewdley lad done good.

[sidcow]

On 13/06/2024 at 13:36, wishywashy said:

What

Where do I vote? 

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

And the labour party is still here? Thats why when i read the tories are finished after this election  they wont be.

As an electoral force they really might be. If they finish below 2nd in terms of seats they absolutely face an existential crisis. The LibDems will have much more exposure in the media, the LibDems will bring in much more in donations, a lot of which would previously have gone to the Tories. Most big donors donate for influence not ideology. The Tories will be in a position they’ve never been in before, they'll have to dismantle a big part of the machine, CCHQ won’t be able to afford the staff, we're already seeing them have a funding crisis and they are still in power, finishing third and that won’t get any better.

And on top of that, more and more of their voters will be dead. They’ve had a demographic time bomb ticking away for years and it really is about to go off and earlier by about 5 years than I expected. Thatchers children aren’t voting for them in big numbers and never have.

[sidcow]

On 13/06/2024 at 13:55, Jareth said:

Right that's it, I'm voting Green

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

As an electoral force they really might be. If they finish below 2nd in terms of seats they absolutely face an existential crisis. The LibDems will have much more exposure in the media, the LibDems will bring in much more in donations, a lot of which would previously have gone to the Tories. Most big donors donate for influence not ideology. The Tories will be in a position they’ve never been in before, they'll have to dismantle a big part of the machine, CCHQ won’t be able to afford the staff, we're already seeing them have a funding crisis and they are still in power, finishing third and that won’t get any better.

And on top of that, more and more of their voters will be dead. They’ve had a demographic time bomb ticking away for years and it really is about to go off and earlier by about 5 years than I expected. Thatchers children aren’t voting for them in big numbers and never have.

Spot on I think.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Where do I vote? 

This story has been about for a good while. But the thing that tweet doesn’t tell you is that this came to light years ago when he actually did it to a Sun reporter and they published the story

[sidcow]

On 13/06/2024 at 18:29, Seat68 said:

You should head over to Fullfact and not take what Boris Johnson says as truth. 

If you can't take what Boris Johnson says as fact what's the point anymore man? 

[sidcow]

On 13/06/2024 at 18:34, Chindie said:

The Labour manifesto essentially says the country is **** and there won't be enough spending to fix it. They're going to hit the growth button, and definitely, definitely close some tax loop holes, and that will pay for very, very, very limited spending. And that's the winning manifesto.

Change!

Well they could instead borrow hundreds of billions, or massively raise taxes and do all the good stuff people crave.  Which is your preference for that? 

Edited June 15 by sidcow

[sidcow]

On 13/06/2024 at 19:11, sheepyvillian said:

He's the new Tony Blair. And look how mendacious he turned out to be. 

You know what. When Tony Blair was last in office I had an NHS Dentist, I could see my Doctor reasonably easily, I didn't see homeless people EVERYWHERE and my Grandparents were being given a reasonable amount of social care. 

None of these things are happening now so it seems a pretty good start good starting off point to me. I might even forgive him the odd misguided war. 

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Well they could instead borrow hundreds of billions, or massively raise taxes and do all the good stuff people crave.  Which is your preference for that? 

They will have to do both. 

If things are to get better, they need to spend money. A lot of it. They'll aren't going to improve things with just deck chair shuffling, there needs to be excess investment. So they either don't plan on doing much, or they need to find a lot of money.

Pressing the growth button is a **** joke and isn't a solution. Neither is the much vaunted 'efficencies'. And tax loophole closures are never serious and never do much anyway. 

So what's it to be? 

[one_ian_taylor]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

A "supermajority" isn't really a thing. There's nothing that Starmer can do with 500 MPs that he can't do with 400 MPs.

Would potentially make it easier to override a rebellion and get legislation through. Though the number of government posts would stay roughly  the same,  so the ability to hand out positions  to help keep people in line would be no greater 

[sheepyvillian]

37 minutes ago, sidcow said:

You know what. When Tony Blair was last in office I had an NHS Dentist, I could see my Doctor reasonably easily, I didn't see homeless people EVERYWHERE and my Grandparents were being given a reasonable amount of social care. 

None of these things are happening now so it seems a pretty good start good starting off point to me. I might even forgive him the odd misguided war. 

Bully for You!!

[PaulC]

59 minutes ago, Chindie said:

They will have to do both. 

If things are to get better, they need to spend money. A lot of it. They'll aren't going to improve things with just deck chair shuffling, there needs to be excess investment. So they either don't plan on doing much, or they need to find a lot of money.

Pressing the growth button is a **** joke and isn't a solution. Neither is the much vaunted 'efficencies'. And tax loophole closures are never serious and never do much anyway. 

So what's it to be? 

Its not an easy situation. If you spend the money thsts needed then taxes will need to be raised or we just borrow more and then inflation will go back up, mortgages will rise. So it's catch 22. Labour are doing the sensible approach imo 

Edited June 15 by PaulC

[Chindie]

10 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Its not an easy situation. If you spend the money thsts needed then taxes will need to be raised or we just borrow more and then inflation will go back up, mortgages will rise. So it's catch 22. Labour are doing the sensible approach imo 

It's not an easy situation, no. 

But I'm not sure 'it's all ****, lol' is an acceptable position for a government to take. And nor is 'we'd like things to be better, but *shrug*'. It was pathetic when the Tories spent a decade pulling the copper out of the walls while happily telling us Labour spent everything, and it won't wash when Labour say it now either. They have to improve things. If they don't, what's the **** point?

[meregreen]

1 hour ago, sheepyvillian said:

Bully for You!!

Daft response to a perfectly valid comment. Things were a lot lot better under that Labour Govt.

[sheepyvillian]

3 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Daft response to a perfectly valid comment. Things were a lot lot better under that Labour Govt.

And where did I say things weren't better? So less of the "Daft". You haven't a jar where that response is coming from. I just made the observation that a right - wing Labour government isn't much different from a Tory Government.  A man who led us to war on an outright lie, and not an hint of an apology. Thousands dead in a fruitless war. Go and tell the families of all those who needlessly died how wonderful things were under Blair. Blunkett, no better. Straw, the same.

Bevan would have turned in his grave.

Don't tell me about daft and then come with some banal generalisation. 

[desensitized43]

59 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

And where did I say things weren't better? So less of the "Daft". You haven't a jar where that response is coming from. I just made the observation that a right - wing Labour government isn't much different from a Tory Government.  A man who led us to war on an outright lie, and not an hint of an apology. Thousands dead in a fruitless war. Go and tell the families of all those who needlessly died how wonderful things were under Blair. Blunkett, no better. Straw, the same.

Bevan would have turned in his grave.

Don't tell me about daft and then come with some banal generalisation. 

It’s a spectrum isn’t it? Were they more to the right than Corbyns labour? Yes, but to call them “right wing” is a bit much.

If you ignore Iraq they’re comfortably the best government of the last 50 years. Especially when you look at thatcher before them and the utter embarrassment after.

[meregreen]

1 hour ago, sheepyvillian said:

And where did I say things weren't better? So less of the "Daft". You haven't a jar where that response is coming from. I just made the observation that a right - wing Labour government isn't much different from a Tory Government.  A man who led us to war on an outright lie, and not an hint of an apology. Thousands dead in a fruitless war. Go and tell the families of all those who needlessly died how wonderful things were under Blair. Blunkett, no better. Straw, the same.

Bevan would have turned in his grave.

Don't tell me about daft and then come with some banal generalisation. 

Bully for you. Is about as banal as it gets. People will be voting on their Gas bill, food costs, lack of housing, NHS crumbling, public standards falling . All of which were better under Blair’s Govt. If you can’t see the difference between any Labour Govt left or right, and a Tory one then you haven’t been watching.