Post Match Thread: Election 2017

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The reason Brexit became a non issue during the election wasn't because the Tories were successful in hiding it, it was because Labour too are committed to carrying it through and didn't contest the premise of it during the election.
I don't think anybody is cerebrating losing the election. What they are celebrating is the destruction of the myth of the unelectability of any party or person to the left of centre of the political spectrum.
As for your football analogy, just think of "noisy neighbours" and" never in my lifetime", and the moment Mancini said he was going the tear the banner down. That's what happened at this election and that is why people are so elated.

Labour wanted the Ukip votes and disenchanted Tory votes so they had to give those who voted Leave the same deal as the Tories were giving - implementing the Leave vote!

As for 'unelectability' Corbyn or his ilk has a long way to go before they would command a workable majority or minority in Parliament.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

This. Unfortunately there isn't a 'City' party to vote for.

If The MRL party just changed their colours from yellow to sky blue . . . . . . . . . . !

 

[goalmole]

For politcally idealist losers yes.

In reality, we have the most inept governement in living memory, still in power, because the opposition are a bunch of fucking clowns.

Corbyn's credibility deficit was just too great to overcome in one election. That has been corrected as the latest opinion polls are proving.
The next election will give us the answers. If I am wrong then I will happily admit to you that I was wrong. I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me.

 

[Chippy_boy]

@pirate

I'm back from another ban. You asked me some questions, that I was in the middle of replying to, but couldn't post because the ban happened. Here's what I had typed...

I would also like your response to other points I raised earlier

You might, but I don't have infinite patience. I am not trying to be rude, I am simply getting a bit bored trying to justify every line to an audience who in the main, have an opposing view and who are not persuadable. It all seems a bit of a waste of time. Anyway, I'll answer for you...

You say we can pay public sector employees what they need to be paid, subject to the economy being able to afford it. When the economy cant afford it (as the Tories claim is currently the case) do we cut the public sector? Do we suppress the wages and keep the same number of employees? or do we reduce the number of employees on the same wages and reduce then services provided?

All of the above. Cut departments, cut services and cut wages. Gordon Brown started down the road of public sector pay restraint. This is the path we've been on now for 6+ years and it's been a long hard road. Hopefully the end is in sight, providing Brexit doesn't plunge us into recession. (It might well, unfortunately).

If we suppress the wages then that puts people into the welfare system and any money saved in wages are lost in welfare payments, plus a little bit more in increased admin costs.

Not true. Not everyone in the public sector falls into the bracket of needing welfare support when their pay is cut. So the welfare payments are less than the pay savings. It's not very efficient, granted. Which is why I said it's not an ideal solution. One of the reasons anyway.

If we cut the number of employees the direct saving in wages are again offset in increased welfare payments (the people who lose their jobs are unlikely to get other employment as the reason the government cant afford them is the economy is struggling) and reduction in tax take.

Also not true. It was always the Conservative's believe and intention that as public sector jobs were lost, the private sector would grow and hire many of them. This has proved to be correct, and we now enjoy our highest ever employment levels, despite the job losses in the public sector.

In addition there is either the economic losses incurred from reduced services (for example: less road maintenance leading to increased haulage costs) or the social problems (reduced healthcare, more social strife)

Indeed. This is what happens when you have 15 years of overspending and you then have to pull your reigns in. Not good.

Private care costs. If they increase substantially they become public care costs as people will not be able to afford them. Either the state will have to pick up the bill or just leave people to suffer and die. Which would you choose?

What do you expect me to say, "No, I'd prefer people to die"? Of course not. As it stands, people have to sell their homes to pay for residential care (if they cannot otherwise afford it). Beyond that the state already has to pick up the bill. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Why is our farming industry different from other industry? You seem happy to get rid of other industries, what makes farming special.

I mention it because it's a particularly difficult case. One could argue that we do not need to produce any of our own food, and with highly paid jobs, we should just let other countries grown our food for us and we buy what we need off them. This would be a pretty extreme view however, with all sorts of environment concerns apart from anything else. So putting this idea to one side, we need our farming industry. And it's a particularly big employer of low-skilled, low paid staff. So it's a challenge.

There are other low-value-add industries that we do not need, so if people leave those industries because the pay is rubbish, it's less of a problem. There's a million and one things that we could make, but it would not be sensible to try to make since other countries with a lower cost base can make those things better and cheaper. To try to compete on that basis is daft and we shouldn't try. Food is a bit of a special case.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Corbyn's credibility deficit was just too great to overcome in one election. That has been corrected as the latest opinion polls are proving.
The next election will give us the answers. If I am wrong then I will happily admit to you that I was wrong. I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me.

You're right, Corbyn is in a far better place now than two months ago. He's made ground on four fronts.

Because of this election, the media find it harder to castigate him, though they will never give up, the Telegraph today leads with Corbyn wanting Grenfell Tower residents housed in the homes of the rich, when what he was saying was the residents should be housed in the vast number of empty houses deliberately kept empty, sometimes for years, by property speculators. Oh! and the election result was nothing to do with Corbyn and all about May.

The Blairites in the PLP have had their arses handed to them and are trying to crawl back in to the tent, having been pissing in to it for two years.

Corbyn's personal rating in the country has risen, even those who hate his politics can no longer criticise his competence.

And he's moved the political debate to the left.

 

[goalmole]

You're right, Corbyn is in a far better place now than two months ago. He's made ground on four fronts.

Because of this election, the media find it harder to castigate him, though they will never give up, the Telegraph today leads with Corbyn wanting Grenfell Tower residents housed in the homes of the rich, when what he was saying was the residents should be housed in the vast number of empty houses deliberately kept empty, sometimes for years, by property speculators. Oh! and the election result was nothing to do with Corbyn and all about May.

The Blairites in the PLP have had their arses handed to them and are trying to crawl back in to the tent, having been pissing in to it for two years.

Corbyn's personal rating in the country has risen, even those who hate his politics can no longer criticise his competence.

And he's moved the political debate to the left.

What I can't understand about the Blairites is why the insist on joining the Labour party in the hope they can drive it to the right. Why don't they join the Tory party and try to pull it to the left. Surely that would be better for the country.

 

[Magicpole]

What I can't understand about the Blairites is why the insist on joining the Labour party in the hope they can drive it to the right. Why don't they join the Tory party and try to pull it to the left. Surely that would be better for the country.

If that isn't acceptable then why not resign and fuck off.

Start their own splitter Blairshite party and harness all that silent majority of people who are just craving a Red Tory party.

They will be in no 10 in no time if you listen to them. There us a lot of talk about reaching out to them, if I was Corbyn I definitely would but that reaching out would be with a right hook.

Corbyn got 40% of the vote, more than Blairshite, so he doesn't need those backstabbing traitors.

Get them to fuck and appoint people who believe in the manifesto. How can people who wanted a Tory landslide to get rid of Corbyn ever be treated anything but the traitors they are?

 

[pirate]

@pirate

I'm back from another ban. You asked me some questions, that I was in the middle of replying to, but couldn't post because the ban happened. Here's what I had typed...



You might, but I don't have infinite patience. I am not trying to be rude, I am simply getting a bit bored trying to justify every line to an audience who in the main, have an opposing view and who are not persuadable. It all seems a bit of a waste of time. Anyway, I'll answer for you...



All of the above. Cut departments, cut services and cut wages. Gordon Brown started down the road of public sector pay restraint. This is the path we've been on now for 6+ years and it's been a long hard road. Hopefully the end is in sight, providing Brexit doesn't plunge us into recession. (It might well, unfortunately).



Not true. Not everyone in the public sector falls into the bracket of needing welfare support when their pay is cut. So the welfare payments are less than the pay savings. It's not very efficient, granted. Which is why I said it's not an ideal solution. One of the reasons anyway.



Also not true. It was always the Conservative's believe and intention that as public sector jobs were lost, the private sector would grow and hire many of them. This has proved to be correct, and we now enjoy our highest ever employment levels, despite the job losses in the public sector.



Indeed. This is what happens when you have 15 years of overspending and you then have to pull your reigns in. Not good.



What do you expect me to say, "No, I'd prefer people to die"? Of course not. As it stands, people have to sell their homes to pay for residential care (if they cannot otherwise afford it). Beyond that the state already has to pick up the bill. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.



I mention it because it's a particularly difficult case. One could argue that we do not need to produce any of our own food, and with highly paid jobs, we should just let other countries grown our food for us and we buy what we need off them. This would be a pretty extreme view however, with all sorts of environment concerns apart from anything else. So putting this idea to one side, we need our farming industry. And it's a particularly big employer of low-skilled, low paid staff. So it's a challenge.

There are other low-value-add industries that we do not need, so if people leave those industries because the pay is rubbish, it's less of a problem. There's a million and one things that we could make, but it would not be sensible to try to make since other countries with a lower cost base can make those things better and cheaper. To try to compete on that basis is daft and we shouldn't try. Food is a bit of a special case.

you are correct we are far apart and if you dont want to carry on debating, then thats fine.

Firstly how is the end in sight?
We have missed all the deadlines for reducing the defecit and the latest forecast is that while the deficit will fall this year it will grow again next year. The whole austerity plan was to eliminate the deficit and then reduce the national debt and its just not working.

I take your point that not all public sector workers are welfare benefits, but a lot are. As those on welfare benefits dont make a contribution to savings, why not take them out of the pay freezes/reductions? Surely that would make it more efficient?

You do know that the rule changes introduced in the past 7 years have artificially reduced the people counted as unemployed dont you? I would argue they were introduced to achieve just such a result.
For example. My 25 year old daughter was unemployed after the completion of a degree last year. She went to register as a job seeker in the July, she was toldher student loan covered July, so she went back in august. She was then informed it would take 3 months to process and there would be no backdating of any money awarded. During that 3 months she would be expected to attend 40 specific days at a job club and failure to attend would mean that her claim would fail. The closest job club is 29 miles away, there used to be one less than a mile away but that closed in 2011 and one 6 miles away but that closed in 2015. The minimum cost by public transport is £10 per day. She could have saved some money by getting a weekly pass but she was not allowed to change the days so they fitted into weekly blocks. Therefore the cost of travel in that 3 months was £400. Again there was no method to help with that cost. Jobseekers allowance is £73.10 per week for a 25 year old, so that would be nearly 4.5 months (3 months processing and 5.5 weeks of benefits) unemployed just to have received absolutely no net gain. If she had been under 24 the rate is £57.90 and it would been 5.5 months. She asked if she could register as unemployed and make no monetary claim, but was told no she could not do that.
She made the calculation that she would be likely to get a job in 4.5 months, so didnt bother and was magically not counted for the actual 6.5 months she was unemployed.
I would treat claims that unemployment has not risen with a huge pinch of salt.

You dont know what point I am trying to make here? You posted that if private care costs increased people would just have to pay it, you seemed to be saying that people could afford it if they tried hard enough. My point was that most people will not be able to afford to pay it so the government would end up paying anyway or just let people die.

I would agree that farming is a special case, but then its not an industry and should not be treated as such and therefore should be subsidised but any profit made should be split between the farmer and the government to offset the subsidy.

While there are lots of low paid work we could transition out of what about the 2.5 million that we cant. Are those 2.5 million just destined to be poor forever and just get poorer compared to the rest of the population by the year? Thats more than 5% of the workforce you are allowing to be an underclass. When people lose hope, then society suffers. We need a way of raising the low paid up or at the very least give them a realistic pathway to escape. You pointed out that pathway is education but that is being eroded and is not being prioritised as it should.

 

[pirate]

What I can't understand about the Blairites is why the insist on joining the Labour party in the hope they can drive it to the right. Why don't they join the Tory party and try to pull it to the left. Surely that would be better for the country.

unfortunately the tories are so far to the right that pulling it anywhere near right of centre never mind the left of centre where blairites sit is so much harder than pulling the labour party closer to the centre

 

[Damocles]

If that isn't acceptable then why not resign and fuck off.

Start their own splitter Blairshite party and harness all that silent majority of people who are just craving a Red Tory party.

They will be in no 10 in no time if you listen to them. There us a lot of talk about reaching out to them, if I was Corbyn I definitely would but that reaching out would be with a right hook.

Corbyn got 40% of the vote, more than Blairshite, so he doesn't need those backstabbing traitors.

Get them to fuck and appoint people who believe in the manifesto. How can people who wanted a Tory landslide to get rid of Corbyn ever be treated anything but the traitors they are?

See the tolerance of the far left is in full effect