UK Politics Thread

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Where's that from? The last time I looked Steptoe was promising to spend x28 that of Johnson in his manifesto

no idea, all i could find was some Daily Express boot licking drivel, (Pretty Safe to assume thats not where our left leaning friend read it :P) maybe he can link us.

but it dont matter, none of the parties ever cost manifestos properly. in practice alot of whats written in them never comes to any real fruition and even if it does- it can still be a total failure.

Manifestos just give you an approximation at best. And all we can judge is how silly or realistic they sound overall.

The tories promised to rehome the Grenfell survivors with in 3 months and didnt, they promised to reduce net migration numbers and didnt. So yeah they can promise to out spend team Red on public services, push though Brexit by Jan 31st and give everyone a free chocolate teapot, doesnt mean they will.

[Jimbuna]

Boris Johnson will be interviewed on Sunday's Andrew Marr Show as it is in "the public interest" following the London Bridge attack, the BBC says.

It had been reported that the BBC had told the PM he would not be allowed on Sunday's show unless he also agreed to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.

Mr Johnson has so far refused to commit to a one-to-one with Mr Neil - who has already grilled other party leaders.

Labour called the BBC's move to allow the PM on the Marr show "shameful".

The BBC said in a statement that as the national public service broadcaster its first priority "must be its audience".

"In the wake of a major terrorist incident, we believe it is now in the public interest that the prime minister should be interviewed on our flagship Sunday political programme.

"All parties' election policy proposals must - and will - face detailed scrutiny from us and we continue to urge Boris Johnson to take part in the prime-time Andrew Neil interview as other leaders have done."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50615808

I'm not sure what Boris is concerned about, other leaders have done it but perhaps it is himself he fears

[JU_88]

Borris is such a coward for avoiding Andrew Neil. Cowardess will hurt him more just going though with it and making a tit out of himself.
Neils pretty good though, he knows how to hold peoples feet to the flames no matter who they are or what they believe.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Borris is such a coward for avoiding Andrew Neil. Cowardess will hurt him more just going though with it and making a tit out of himself.
Neils pretty good though, he knows how to hold peoples feet to the flames no matter who they are or what they believe.

Aye, probably my favourite political broadcaster.

[STEED]

I am angry at my LibDem candidate, I rec'd a personal letter which raised a medical issue which I will not state on here as that is between me and my doctor so I believed. This letter seems to suggest they got hold of my personal medical information that has nothing to do with them at all. The letter is carefully worded but clearly targeted at me to get me to vote for them.

I was thinking of taking this up with them but I have dealings with the local LibDems in the past and they were far from helpful, in fact they were not very pleasant.

Can political party's get hold and use people's personal information to get them to vote for them? If so this is bloody bang out of order.

[MGR1]

Lord Ashcroft:

What voters said in my latest focus groups, from three SNP targets

Specifically:

"Aberdeen South and East Renfrewshire, both won by the Conservatives two years ago, and Glasgow North East, now one of Labour’s seven constituencies north of the border."

The last bit about "what sort of house would each party be?" is rather funny!

Mike.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by STEED

I am angry at my LibDem candidate, I rec'd a personal letter which raised a medical issue which I will not state on here as that is between me and my doctor so I believed. This letter seems to suggest they got hold of my personal medical information that has nothing to do with them at all. The letter is carefully worded but clearly targeted at me to get me to vote for them.

I was thinking of taking this up with them but I have dealings with the local LibDems in the past and they were far from helpful, in fact they were not very pleasant.

Can political party's get hold and use people's personal information to get them to vote for them? If so this is bloody bang out of order.

My Mother had it out with Libdem councilors back in the late 90's She was trying to save a school for handicapped people where she worked, Long story short she and her campaigners lost, they were dirty corrupt snakes the way they behaved. Put me right off that political party for life, I could never vote for them now. This was Islington, (now Corbyns consituency.)

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Where's that from? The last time I looked Steptoe was promising to spend x28 that of Johnson in his manifesto

I think i found that in "Die Welt", should have posted it with a translation (it was obviously wrong), i cannot find it anymore or they changed it.
I found this english site interesting: https://fullfact.org/election-2019/i...-fact-checked/
For me it is like 80 billions of Corbyn (?) spending vs. 62 billions planned by Johnson:

Prison and criminal justice
2,7 billion pounds

Schools
4,6 billion pounds

Brexit
2,1 billion pounds

Transport
39 billion, no real numbers exist though

Towns
3,6 billion pounds

Northern Ireland, Scotlland, Wales
300 million pounds

Full fibre broadband for all by 2025

Raise higher income tax from 50,000 to 80,000,
raise the point at which people start paying National Insurance
Tax changes
cost around 10 billion

In all 62,3 billions per year according to Johnson.

Did not find a detailed labour spending plan.
I think it both sounds like fantasy, like a lot of other things i heard.

And what about the NHS and privatising it?
"Jeremy Corbyn’s brandishing of a report that he claimed revealed secret Tory plans to privatise the NHS had clearly had an impact. If the actual evidence still seemed hazy at best, even some previous Conservative voters feared that the story might contain more than a grain of truth: “I’m a bit concerned about the NHS and the possibility of privatisation. I think the Tory party are considering selling, and that would be a disaster."

[STEED]

Originally Posted by JU_88

My Mother had it out with Libdem councilors back in the late 90's She was trying to save a school for handicapped people where she worked, Long story short she and her campaigners lost, they were dirty corrupt snakes the way they behaved. Put me right off that political party for life, I could never vote for them now. This was Islington, (now Corbyns consituency.)

Yes I agree, they say they are nice but the dealings I had in the past was clear they were not. I am still waiting for apology from them near on 10 years waiting now. As for this new matter that just tells me how low they will go. Just trying to work out if what they did was in the bounds of election law.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Catfish

And what about the NHS and privatising it?
"Jeremy Corbyn’s brandishing of a report that he claimed revealed secret Tory plans to privatise the NHS had clearly had an impact. If the actual evidence still seemed hazy at best, even some previous Conservative voters feared that the story might contain more than a grain of truth: “I’m a bit concerned about the NHS and the possibility of privatisation. I think the Tory party are considering selling, and that would be a disaster."

Yeah I dont know what can be done about the NHS, Im not sure its all that fixable. I hope it doesnt get privatised, I agree that would be a disaster, but honestly i dont think the Tories would have the balls, imagine the amount of flak they would get - probably they'd never get elected again. Its also true that just throwing money at it isnt enough, It been getting ever more funding, even under the ConDem Austerity coalition it was never cut, its on what 150 billion a year, almost a quarter of governments budget. Yet is still stretched, mental health services are really struggling especially.


They probably could use stricter rules on who gets access to it for nowt. Tourists should probably get billed (they should have travel insurance coverage anyway) new migrants wont have paid in to the system yet, but they not always so flush financially, so thats a tricky one as it would be inhumane to turn them away on that basis. people who harm them selves while Drunk should also get billed fot their treatment IMO. People talk about the australian model. but I'm not sure on that. And i dont know if those things would even make a dent tbh.


Also at the speed our population is rising you cant build new infastucture fast enough even if the money supply was near infinate, it still takes time to build & equip hostpitals and train new staff. Money cant speed that up.

Our birth rates are down so thats not the issue, our aging population plays a small part (responisble for about 5% increase in demand since 2011 i think) but that will get worse - especially if immagration were to be cut.
Then there is the high rate of Migration - which wouldnt be a problem if emmigration wasnt decreasing along side it.
Progressive or not, this is largely where the bulk of increasing demand is coming from. (ever newer people needing the service who havent been around long enough to pay in to it yet, and by the time they have, they are paying for newer arrivals than themselves, and repeat) but on the flip side that same immagration is also providing us with many skilled overseas NHS staff, so - double edged sword. And like I said if you cut it, an aging population problem could still tip it over the edge.

There is no easy way out, the NHS is deeply bogged down with too many other entwined complications. its current situation is not sustainable though, sadly something will have to give eventually.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by STEED

I am angry at my LibDem candidate, I rec'd a personal letter which raised a medical issue which I will not state on here as that is between me and my doctor so I believed. This letter seems to suggest they got hold of my personal medical information that has nothing to do with them at all. The letter is carefully worded but clearly targeted at me to get me to vote for them.

I was thinking of taking this up with them but I have dealings with the local LibDems in the past and they were far from helpful, in fact they were not very pleasant.

Can political party's get hold and use people's personal information to get them to vote for them? If so this is bloody bang out of order.

As far as my understanding goes it would take a court order giving permission for disclosure to allow that to happen.

Now granted, I don't know the detail and or circumstances of the information, nor do I want or need to but I'd suggest it may have been pure coincidence.

If you have evidence 'beyond the balance of probability' I'd be inclined to take it further with your local health care provider.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

My Mother had it out with Libdem councilors back in the late 90's She was trying to save a school for handicapped people where she worked, Long story short she and her campaigners lost, they were dirty corrupt snakes the way they behaved. Put me right off that political party for life, I could never vote for them now. This was Islington, (now Corbyns consituency.)

All I can say Francis is 'nuff said'

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I think i found that in "Die Welt", should have posted it with a translation (it was obviously wrong), i cannot find it anymore or they changed it.
I found this english site interesting: https://fullfact.org/election-2019/i...-fact-checked/
For me it is like 80 billions of Corbyn (?) spending vs. 62 billions planned by Johnson:

Prison and criminal justice
2,7 billion pounds

Schools
4,6 billion pounds

Brexit
2,1 billion pounds

Transport
39 billion, no real numbers exist though

Towns
3,6 billion pounds

Northern Ireland, Scotlland, Wales
300 million pounds

Full fibre broadband for all by 2025

Raise higher income tax from 50,000 to 80,000,
raise the point at which people start paying National Insurance
Tax changes
cost around 10 billion

In all 62,3 billions per year according to Johnson.

Did not find a detailed labour spending plan.
I think it both sounds like fantasy, like a lot of other things i heard.

And what about the NHS and privatising it?
"Jeremy Corbyn’s brandishing of a report that he claimed revealed secret Tory plans to privatise the NHS had clearly had an impact. If the actual evidence still seemed hazy at best, even some previous Conservative voters feared that the story might contain more than a grain of truth: “I’m a bit concerned about the NHS and the possibility of privatisation. I think the Tory party are considering selling, and that would be a disaster."

The 'fantasy' figures thus far released by Labour do not include the hundreds of billions that would be needed to pay for mass renationalisation of gas, electric, water, rail, steel etc. etc.

Add to that the potential £60 billion for the promised compensation to the WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) and that alone matches the Tory promises.

I'm in no doubt Labour would bankrupt the UK in a year or two post election and that is a price I'm not willing to see my children and grandchild pay if I can help prevent it.

Now on the NHS.....My personal experience not too many years ago when I was domiciled in the Netherlands taught me that I was expected to have health insurance because only 'life saving' care would otherwise be provided.

The NHS IMHO must be the envy of most of the world being free at point of contact. Therefore, it is well worth going that extra mile to be saved but that can only happen if the correct rules and expectations (see above) are adhered to and enforced.

[JU_88]

Im not sure Labour would 'brankrpt' the UK, in practice they'd probably fail to nationalise ALL of the those institutions when confronted with the reality of it.

They talk tough on taxation, but in practice - cheap government borrowing is often much easier and more lucrative than tax hikes. and its the younger generations who will end up paying for a debt binge down the line.
I worry that's where they'll end up going.
But yeah I dont trust Labour or any political movment that are Idealogues first and technocrats second.

Idealogues tend break more than they fix in the long run.

[Catfish]

Thanks Jim and Francis

The 'fantasy' figures thus far released by Labour do not include the hundreds of billions that would be needed to pay for mass renationalisation of gas, electric, water, rail, steel etc. etc. [...]

Mass renationalisation, that tackles it. Former governments have obviously sold the silverware by privatising systems that had initially been financed by taxes of the people, and the latter were then dispossesed. This is how it was in Germany.
I guess though it is not the price for renationalisation, but the costs for repairing all that, what private companies have neglected during their ownership to maximise profits.

Think telecommunication, think transportation, think water and electricity.
I do not know exactly how it is in England, but everytime the german government had to "renationalise" (not voluntarily or by ideology, mind you) regionally or nationwide, it had to be done because of the neglect (e.g. the damges of the rail system had become criminal and began to cost lives - oh what a sudden uproar).
Regarding the NHS i am astonished that the non-socialist England ever was able to provide this for the people. I wish it could be continued, imho it is one giant accomplishment worth rescuing; but like Ju88 i think this will be hard to finance.


OT opinion piece: The next young generations (not ony from England, but the whole UK and to some extent all of Europe) will have to pay for the blunder that is currently happening. And it will be hard enough to finance brexit for England. Those (by Johnson) proclaimed small number of 2,1 billions must have fallen out of the blue sky, it is unrealistic, to not use worse terms. A lot of direct trade returns and thus income will fall, for decades. Say financial portals, not that i trust them, but sounds reasonable.
Prosperity and wealth is won by trade, cooperation and exchange, not by nationalist isolation.