Don't vote Tory

[arcade fireman]

I think the worst possible result would be an increased Tory majority but only by about 10 seats. That will probably mean Corbyn stays despite doing worse than Miliband last time and despite Labour needing to pull a lot of voters from the Tories to stand a chance next time. 

At least a larger Tory majority than that would mean Labour were a bit more unified going forward.

That said, would much much prefer the Tories losing their majority over either of these. 

 

[Mr.Tease]

8 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

right off to de=bribe the pigs.... my secret weapon of choice ? cake !!!

I used to do voluntary work at the rspca years ago, and we used to have a wing that they used to use as kennels for peoples pets when they were going on holiday - some of the food specifications we got used to make me laugh- some dogs would only have carrots if they were pealed, others insisted they be chilled in the fridge first! They can be very fussy eaters! 

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

I think the worst possible result would be an increased Tory majority but only by about 10 seats. That will probably mean Corbyn stays despite doing worse than Miliband last time and despite Labour needing to pull a lot of voters from the Tories to stand a chance next time. 

At least a larger Tory majority than that would mean Labour were a bit more unified going forward.

That said, would much much prefer the Tories losing their majority over either of these. 

 

I don't see the rush if we do lose- take stock for a few weeks first (its worth watching last night's newsnight, some surprising opinions from Blairite pundit and focus group).

For me the absolute worst outcome is if we go back to a bitter round of infighting and give the tories a free ride again- I've had enough of that to last a lifetime. 

[zahidf]

60-70 seat majority for the Tories unfortunately. Despite Corbyns flaws, i think May is lot worse, in terms of both policies and personaility.

[zahidf]

3 hours ago, SighMo said:

She's learning from Trump. By using the changing Human Rights she's appealing to her base supporters...I think this will see her across the line.

"Tearing up" human rights law would have meant no new Hillsborough Inquest.

Second inquest only possible because of human right law.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I don't see the rush if we do lose- take stock for a few weeks first (its worth watching last night's newsnight, some surprising opinions from Blairite pundit and focus group).

there's already waaaaay too many get-them-in-early excuses flying around, all intended to avoid too much scrutiny of why Labour lost (if they do). Doing better is not enough, unless the doing better is eating into the tory vote.

Remember Jezza's claims of getting the non-voters to vote for him, one of the very reasons why so many said he was the answer? How's that doing?

If Labour lose it will be for the same reason they always lose - the failure to attract enough people who voted tory last time. It's those people who are the difference between winning and losing.

[mikegday]

My prediction, based on nothing but averages of other people's polls and a few adjustments for my own personal gut feeling (basically total guess work because I'm bored at work)

CON 351

LAB 220

SNP 48

LIB DEM 9

PLAID 3

GREEN 1

UKIP 0

N IRELAND 18

 

Con Majority 52

I do hope Corbyn doesn't go anywhere if the above is anywhere near what happens. I think this constant stepping down if you fail has to stop, it stops people getting 'attached' to someone.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, mikegday said:

Con Majority 52

eh? That doesn't match the numbers you've given above it.

[arcade fireman]

13 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I don't see the rush if we do lose- take stock for a few weeks first (its worth watching last night's newsnight, some surprising opinions from Blairite pundit and focus group).

For me the absolute worst outcome is if we go back to a bitter round of infighting and give the tories a free ride again- I've had enough of that to last a lifetime. 

If Labour lose seats then Corbyn needs to go. I don't see the point of him carrying on - why carry on for even a few weeks as leader unless you think you might lead the party going forward?

Next time round the task will be a lot harder - much fewer non-Tory voters to attract and upcoming boundary changes mean Labour will need to attract a whole heap of Tory voters. 

If it's a hung Parliament then I think it's fair he sticks around, even if May does end up being PM. 

[mikegday]

Just now, eFestivals said:

eh? That doesn't match the numbers you've given above it.

It doesn't?? What have I done wrong? I thought your majority was if every single other possible MP voted against you - there's 52 more CON MPs than the others combined. I didn't take out the speaker though.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, mikegday said:

I do hope Corbyn doesn't go anywhere if the above is anywhere near what happens. I think this constant stepping down if you fail has to stop, it stops people getting 'attached' to someone.

if Corbyn has taken Labour backwards and not forwards, then i think it's impossible to justify him staying. 

Plus, if he stayed he'd be 73 at the next election, meaning he'd be 78 when he left office (if he somehow won in 2022).

I can't really see how that would make him more electable, plus Labour would be putting their hopes on someone who (to put it bluntly) has a decent chance because of his age of dropping dead before that next election.

And if Corbyn has improved Labour's position it still needs looking at for whether he's able to bridge the gap he's lost by. If he's lost because he'll never attract people who've voted tory then he'll always lose in all circumstances.

If Labour lose they need to be looking forwards at what might make them win in 2022, rather than looking backwards and thinking the next election will be fought on the same ground as this one - which has been an amount of the Corbyn problem, where he was supposedly (in the eyes of his supporters) the fix for Miliband having lost, rather than the guy who might win the next one.

[devonhammer]

What's remarkable is that the Torys are consistently bad for the economy and yet they have convinced everyone otherwise. This article is hard to refute:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

[babyblade41]

28 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I used to do voluntary work at the rspca years ago, and we used to have a wing that they used to use as kennels for peoples pets when they were going on holiday - some of the food specifications we got used to make me laugh- some dogs would only have carrots if they were pealed, others insisted they be chilled in the fridge first! They can be very fussy eaters! 

tell me about it !!

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, mikegday said:

It doesn't?? What have I done wrong? I thought your majority was if every single other possible MP voted against you - there's 52 more CON MPs than the others combined. I didn't take out the speaker though.

sorry, my mistake (I think, anyway). Looking at it again I see you're doubling the number of seats above the halfway point of 325. I was thinking of the majority as the number of seats beyond that 325.

You've probably done it the way it's counted, so my mistake.

[Mr.Tease]

7 minutes ago, arcade fireman said:

If Labour lose seats then Corbyn needs to go. I don't see the point of him carrying on - why carry on for even a few weeks as leader unless you think you might lead the party going forward?

Next time round the task will be a lot harder - much fewer non-Tory voters to attract and upcoming boundary changes mean Labour will need to attract a whole heap of Tory voters. 

If it's a hung Parliament then I think it's fair he sticks around, even if May does end up being PM. 

But why does he have to go immediately - what harm does it do to take a few weeks for everyone to digest the loss, study the stats and give the new candidates time to properly prepare themselves and their pitches based on the election outcome?

I will say, I think Thornberry, Gardner, Rayner and Starmer have done well the past few weeks so I hope they get posts in the new shadow cabinet whoever becomes leader. 

[arcade fireman]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

But why does he have to go immediately - what harm does it do to take a few weeks for everyone to digest the loss, study the stats and give the new candidates time to properly prepare themselves and their pitches based on the election outcome?

I will say, I think Thornberry, Gardner, Rayner and Starmer have done well the past few weeks so I hope they get posts in the new shadow cabinet whoever becomes leader. 

If he said he was "acting leader" to fill the void then that would be fair enough. If he tries to hang on til conference to get the rule change though...

[Mr.Tease]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's already waaaaay too many get-them-in-early excuses flying around, all intended to avoid too much scrutiny of why Labour lost (if they do). Doing better is not enough, unless the doing better is eating into the tory vote.

Remember Jezza's claims of getting the non-voters to vote for him, one of the very reasons why so many said he was the answer? How's that doing?

If Labour lose it will be for the same reason they always lose - the failure to attract enough people who voted tory last time. It's those people who are the difference between winning and losing.

We can't determine if he's managed to get non voters to vote yet because there hasn't been an election for them to turn up to yet! 

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, arcade fireman said:

If he said he was "acting leader" to fill the void then that would be fair enough. If he tries to hang on til conference to get the rule change though...

And let's be honest, that's what we're both alluding to- you want him to go immediately so he can't change the rules, I want him to stay on a few weeks so he can

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, devonhammer said:

What's remarkable is that the Torys are consistently bad for the economy and yet they have convinced everyone otherwise. This article is hard to refute:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

sorry, but that's a crock of shit argument.

The tories inherited a deficit of £156Bn in 2010.

The either had to borrow to cover that deficit, or they had to stop spending every penny of that deficit - cuts - which you'd be screaming even more about than the relatively minor cuts they've actually made.

If someone is supporting a "spend more" platform as the alternative to tory cuts, then you can't sensibly criticise someone for over-borrowing who borrowed less than your alternative would have done.

Plus of course, if the tories are only driven by greed - the standard Labour line - then if the Labour plan would cause much more wealth, why would the tories be against it? 

These are illogical arguments.

Edited June 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

We can't determine if he's managed to get non voters to vote yet because there hasn't been an election for them to turn up to yet! 

but there's no indication that he's going to cause them to vote this time - tho even if they do vote this time, it's not necessarily his doing.

Brexit changed very many things. It would be stupid and wrong to credit Corbyn for the changes brexit caused - unless you're also going to credit him for causing brexit (which I do to an extent as it happens, but when you get into that one he's sold out the people for personal power, and should be the very last person to hold elected office).

(to make it clear, I'm not saying he deliberately caused brexit - so that doesn't make him totally unfit for elected office. It would be the 'deliberate' that would make him that).

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[arcade fireman]

18 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

And let's be honest, that's what we're both alluding to- you want him to go immediately so he can't change the rules, I want him to stay on a few weeks so he can

Yep. I want to make sure Labour don't make the same mistake as they did this time round - but a left wing candidate has got on the ballot paper with the current rules anyway (Diane Abbott got on it in 2010 too). There is no one on the Corbyn faction of the Labour Party capable of pulling the Tory votes needed to win an election. 

[devonhammer]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

sorry, but that's a of of a crock of shit argument.

The tories inherited a deficit of £156Bn in 2010.

The either had to borrow to cover that deficit, or they had to stop spending every penny of that deficit - cuts - which you'd be screaming even more about than the relatively minor cuts they've actually made.

If someone is supporting a "spend more" platform as the alternative to tory cuts, then you can't sensibly criticise someone for over-borrowing who borrowed less than your alternative would have done.

Plus of course, if the tories are only driven by greed - the standard Labour line - then if the Labour plan would cause much more wealth, why would the tories be against it? 

These are illogical arguments.

This is over 70 years, not seven years. There's no arguments here, just facts.

The Tories inherited a big national debt and they increased it massively (more than every Labour government added together). Other economies borrowed and invested and grew because government borrowing is not like personal borrowing.

An example of government increasing spending:

If you invest a million pounds in more nurses, you get at least a third straight back in direct taxation. Of the remainder, most will be spent on taxable goods at 20%, so lets say you get another 10% back. Everything that is spent goes to companies with employees and you get corporate tax and more personal tax. Because this multiplier keeps going, you get most of the money back at worst and  typically more than you invest.

If you cut a million pounds the same effect happens and you actually save very little at best and might lose more at worst.

It's called the Multiplier Effect and is expained better here: https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/multiplier-effect

That's not to say we should be left or right wing. You can invest in a right wing way and support business (as the US have done) or in a left wing way and support the poor, but the simple fact is that austerity doesn't work.

 

 

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, Mr.Tease said:

Its watching them all gloat that does my head in every time. I think we're going to be especially screwed if they win this time- from brexit to NHS, don't trust them with any of it.

Think I'll just avoid the media for a while and focus on glastonbury prep. 

Yep. Thank god the result isnt being announced at glastonbury. The morning of the brexit vote and hearing people around the site shouting stuff like "yes! we're out!" is the lowest I've ever felt at glastonbury by a million miles. I really questioned if it was the place for me anymore at that time. Thankfully those wretched simpletons were vastly outnumbered by lovely people, but it was an awful moment.

May has run a dreadful campaign and has pissed off a lot of her supporters, but anyone thinking these people are going to turn to corbyn are sadly absolutely crackers.

It's the hope that kills you. I have zero hope so will be insulated a bit from the pain. It's poor souls like that penguin fellow off here I feel sorry for. It's going to hit him like a hard punch in the gut.

 

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, devonhammer said:

This is over 70 years, not seven years. There's no arguments here, just facts.

Facts warped by a number of different circumstances, that are 100% absent from everything laid out in that table.

Facts also warped by the choice of start date.

20 minutes ago, devonhammer said:

Other economies borrowed and invested and grew because government borrowing is not like personal borrowing.

Other economies slumped much more and didn't grow for an age, giving more scope for growth when it came.

20 minutes ago, devonhammer said:

If you invest a million pounds in more nurses, you get at least a third straight back in direct taxation.

which is an increase in debt of 2/3rds of the amount spent.

It's not a saving, it's a bigger loss.

20 minutes ago, devonhammer said:

Of the remainder, most will be spent on...

... goods from overseas (that aren't equalled by exports), meaning the country gets even poorer.

20 minutes ago, devonhammer said:

Because this multiplier keeps going, you get most of the money back at worst and  typically more than you invest.

Spending on nurses wages is not an investment, it's consumption spending. It's *impossible* to get back more than you (incorrectly say is) 'invest'.

If what you say is true, Greece would be one of the richest countries in Europe and not utterly fucked.

And all of it ignores the 'dirty little secret' of [left wing] economists....

Quote

Let me tell you about a dirty little secret of economics — namely, that we don’t know very much about how to raise the long-run rate of economic growth. Economists do know how to promote recovery from temporary slumps, even if politicians usually refuse to take their advice. But once the economy is near full employment, further growth depends on raising output per worker. And while there are things that might help make that happen, the truth is that nobody knows how to conjure up rapid productivity gains.

Now, care to tell me why you think we're in a slump that investment can raise us out of, when less-than 5% unemployment is considered an economy at full capacity?

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[elbongo]

Anyhoo... back on track. Don't vote Tory.