National News Official 2019 General Election Thread

I’m glad you agree that Corbyn is better than Johnson.

Personally I think not being interviewed by a radio station that employs Nigel Farage as a shock jock is perfectly reasonable.

Corbyn has apologised many times for antisemitism in the Labour Party. The Conservatives openly make antisemitic remarks in the House of Commons

Talking of antisemitism-here’s Boris Johnson -let’s imagine how the media would respond if Corbyn has said this...

 
Last edited:
“Same old Labour, same old lies. We'll all be fleeced for their own vanity projects.”

I’m not sure I’d classify properly funding the police, NHS, education system and ending homelessness as well as fully commiting to a green economy as vanity projects.
Think about it. Idealogical privatisations (regardless of appropriateness), plus other goodies such as free tuition fees, reduced rail fairs, etc that are a great for perception and bribery of the voters, but come at an incredible price that they are saying will be low but we all know it's a pack of lies. It's pure political vanity over and above the short term priorities of the UK. The Tories do this, but have been more restrained for once.

Sadly, the proposed "green economy" is a socialist political vanity project too.
 
I agree with some of the points in the previous few posts. Corbyn has his faults and clearly there are isolated elements of the Labour Party that have hijacked the legitimate criticism of the state of Israel to express anti Semitic views. And it’s not enough to point the finger at the tories and larger problem they clearly have with islamaphobia and racism in general. The labour response to complaints has been indecisive and inconsistent. That’s not good enough. The recent comments by the chief rabbi however are clumsy and laughably partisan.

However, for me, the biggest difference between the two men is one of authenticity. Corbyn has spent his entire political career fighting injustice and supporting the marginalised. This is the precise reason why he is portrayed by the right wing media as some kind of ultra left wing agitator, when actually if you look at his past record he’s pretty much been on the right side of future public opinion and future political decision every single time. Johnson however, is a different beast. A privileged opportunist, capable and enthusiastically committed to saying or doing whatever is required to win power. Massively dishonest, and leaving a trail of misconduct, shady dealing and broken or manipulated promises in every single position he has ever held.

Nows there’s an argument for having a mendacious snake at the helm. Useful on the international stage, right? The trouble is that Johnson actually isn’t very good at it. And our allies and enemies have his measure.

Only one option for me, regardless of Brexit. A vote for the tories is a vote for food banks, homeless folk freezing to death, the continued privatisation of the nhs, the continued privatisation police & criminal justice service and the cynical exploitation of the tax system to make the rich even richer at the expense of the poor.

As a southern, middle class, small business owner, I might be better off voting Tory. Millions of others won’t be though and our country deserves far better. Interesting how brexit is being pushed down the agenda now isn’t it? I nearly voted leave actually. I don’t like empires or super states and I thought about whether a vote to leave might actually usher in a positive fundamental change to how we conduct politics in the country. Then I remembered the tories and the media stranglehold their friends have. ? A vote for Labour now is a genuine opportunity to make a lasting positive change to how we allow ourselves to be governed and how we treat each other. And you know that if we then have a second brexit referendum on those kind of terms. I might well vote for it.
 
Think about it. Idealogical privatisations (regardless of appropriateness), plus other goodies such as free tuition fees, reduced rail fairs, etc that are a great for perception and bribery of the voters, but come at an incredible price that they are saying will be low but we all know it's a pack of lies. It's pure political vanity over and above the short term priorities of the UK. The Tories do this, but have been more restrained for once.

Sadly, the proposed "green economy" is a socialist political vanity project too.
I disagree with most of your post. Can you provide any evidence for any of your comments, particularly around the inappropriateness of the deprivatisations that have been proposed and also around why you think that it’s ‘bribery’ to make higher education open to all?
 
I disagree with most of your post. Can you provide any evidence for any of your comments, particularly around the inappropriateness of the deprivatisations that have been proposed and also around why you think that it’s ‘bribery’ to make higher education open to all?
This is the point where I then pointlessly sneer, dig and berate you and move the topic on. Is that ok?

There is no need to make tertiary education free for all, it's not broken and the associated cost to the country is significant, especially alongside other projects Labour want to do too. Other than taking care of the student vote like last time because it's popular with that group (then Corbyn backed out), what is the point of it? The fact Corbyn dithered over writing off current student debt is ironic since he was very loose with other policies.

Similarly, the scale of privatisations, as I and others have discussed and linked to already, comes with significant cost to me and you, with little tangible benefit to doing it all so quickly and so hard. It's pure far left ideology and vanity, and regardless of what is going on in the world outside the UK. It makes a massive assumption about the bond markets that I'm sure you will agree are incredibly naive.
 
I agree with some of the points in the previous few posts. Corbyn has his faults and clearly there are isolated elements of the Labour Party that have hijacked the legitimate criticism of the state of Israel to express anti Semitic views. And it’s not enough to point the finger at the tories and larger problem they clearly have with islamaphobia and racism in general. The labour response to complaints has been indecisive and inconsistent. That’s not good enough. The recent comments by the chief rabbi however are clumsy and laughably partisan.

However, for me, the biggest difference between the two men is one of authenticity. Corbyn has spent his entire political career fighting injustice and supporting the marginalised. This is the precise reason why he is portrayed by the right wing media as some kind of ultra left wing agitator, when actually if you look at his past record he’s pretty much been on the right side of future public opinion and future political decision every single time. Johnson however, is a different beast. A privileged opportunist, capable and enthusiastically committed to saying or doing whatever is required to win power. Massively dishonest, and leaving a trail of misconduct, shady dealing and broken or manipulated promises in every single position he has ever held.

Nows there’s an argument for having a mendacious snake at the helm. Useful on the international stage, right? The trouble is that Johnson actually isn’t very good at it. And our allies and enemies have his measure.

Only one option for me, regardless of Brexit. A vote for the tories is a vote for food banks, homeless folk freezing to death, the continued privatisation of the nhs, the continued privatisation police & criminal justice service and the cynical exploitation of the tax system to make the rich even richer at the expense of the poor.

As a southern, middle class, small business owner, I might be better off voting Tory. Millions of others won’t be though and our country deserves far better. Interesting how brexit is being pushed down the agenda now isn’t it? I nearly voted leave actually. I don’t like empires or super states and I thought about whether a vote to leave might actually usher in a positive fundamental change to how we conduct politics in the country. Then I remembered the tories and the media stranglehold their friends have. ? A vote for Labour now is a genuine opportunity to make a lasting positive change to how we allow ourselves to be governed and how we treat each other. And you know that if we then have a second brexit referendum on those kind of terms. I might well vote for it.
If they had his measure, how did Boris and his team manage to get the EU to budge on the backstop when they said it wouldn't happen?

Just a point on foodbanks, they were first introduced under Labour, but the coalition govt allowed them to publicised, hence why they became more known in the past 9 years than they were previously.
 
Think about it. Idealogical privatisations (regardless of appropriateness), plus other goodies such as free tuition fees, reduced rail fairs, etc that are a great for perception and bribery of the voters,

Sadly, the proposed "green economy" is a socialist political vanity project too.

Please can you provide a source or some detail of what Labour will be privatising?
 
This is the point where I then pointlessly sneer, dig and berate you and move the topic on. Is that ok?

There is no need to make tertiary education free for all, it's not broken and the associated cost to the country is significant, especially alongside other projects Labour want to do too. Other than taking care of the student vote like last time because it's popular with that group (then Corbyn backed out), what is the point of it? The fact Corbyn dithered over writing off current student debt is ironic since he was very loose with other policies.

Similarly, the scale of privatisations, as I and others have discussed and linked to already, comes with significant cost to me and you, with little tangible benefit to doing it all so quickly and so hard. It's pure far left ideology and vanity, and regardless of what is going on in the world outside the UK. It makes a massive assumption about the bond markets that I'm sure you will agree are incredibly naive.
Sure thing! Is it ok if I relentlessly point out the inaccuracies in your arguments, label you as self centred and then finally call you a racist or something? ??

The point of making higher education available to all is one of equality. https://www.ucas.com/file/197261/download?token=yGrM_eUZ
Note the difference in Scotland...

as far as privatisation is concerned, I was thinking about this earlier. Can you name me one major British example of privatisation where outcomes for the customer were demonstrably cheaper and better. I couldn’t think of one, but that’s not to say one doesn't exist.
 
If they had his measure, how did Boris and his team manage to get the EU to budge on the backstop when they said it wouldn't happen?

Just a point on foodbanks, they were first introduced under Labour, but the coalition govt allowed them to publicised, hence why they became more known in the past 9 years than they were previously.
Johnson is a busted flush in Europe. They’ve budged on the backstop to put him under pressure at home. And it’s worked.

I’m not sure what your point is about food banks. Have they increased exponentially under the conservatives or not?
 
Don’t confuse poor Gary with facts and reasoned arguments- he hasn’t come across them before as there aren’t any in the Daily Express.
 
I disagree with most of your post. Can you provide any evidence for any of your comments, particularly around the inappropriateness of the deprivatisations that have been proposed and also around why you think that it’s ‘bribery’ to make higher education open to all?

Hahahaha, good luck with that.
 
Look, I spend most of my time on here looking at the match threads etc. I’m happy to debate with anyone. It’s good to hear alternative points of view and have your own challenged.

Aye, I agree. You obviously haven't seen how Gary Baldi works on threads like this though and I've been down that rabbit hole.
 
Some interesting conversations on privatizations/nationalization here. I'm about as central politically as they come (i realize the irony of my forum name ;) ), so perhaps i can give a slightly different perspective from the "middle".

Ideologically I don't give a monkeys whether services are private or nationalized (perhaps with the exception of the NHS) . All i care about is which options proves the best value for money and service for users.

Railways for example. At the moment I would honestly judge them as "OK". They are overpriced in some instances (i.e peak travel etc), and well priced in others (advanced tickets are actually some of cheapest in Europe). Efficiency and capacity also depends on the line and time of time of day/year. So overall, there is room for improvement, but it could be a lot worse. So the question for me about nationalization is; is the chance of improvement of the service worth the risk/cost of a nationalization? (which i imagine is an extremely complex thing to do).
To me, we simply don't know. Sure we can use compatibles in Europe, but that is only an indication. This is what concerns me about labor, it does feel like we are rushing into something ideologically when we don't yet (in my opinion) have the evidence it is the correct course. I also find it concerning they are planning to nationalize so many things. how about 1 step at a time?

If rather than just say "lets nationalize the railways", labor had said "hey, our railways need improvements, and things will only get worse with a growing population. Lets spend a year doing an independent review, look at the possible options of reform. Whether that be full nationalization, nationalization of some lines but not others, higher regulation, or improved bidding competition etc. We can then make an informed choice on what will provide the best outcomes"
If labor had taken that approach they would have a much better chance at getting my vote. Similarly, if the Conservatives had provided some insight into possible reforms that would have helped their case.
 
The UK has the second lowest food bank use in the G7.
The rise in usage began under Labour & well before any welfare reforms.
The rise in usage is driven by increased referrals.

Ask yourself what happened to those people previously, they borrowed from family or went hungry!

We live in a society that throws away 30% of the food we produce................ call that "Green" ?

I sometimes despair that the population (let alone politicians) can`t see the link!!
 
“Second Lowest food bank use in the G7”

Source? data? Per capita or overall?

“The rise in usage is driven in increased referrals “

Of course it is. People are starving!
Those people used to get money on time they weren’t dependent on Universal Credit. Housing Benefit used to cover rent and so on.

I’m wondering if Essex Yellow is Ian Duncan Smith.
 
Well I’ve asked him to come back on a few points and I’ll read his responses with an open mind when/if he does.

I may disagree with Essexyellows etc on a political basis but you can have a good open exchange. In my experience not so much with Gary B in political threads (non-political threads no problem) so as I say good luck and I hope it goes positively for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom