BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
In ld/tory remains seats brexit party are not standing, basically.pblakeney said:
Cons - Leave.rick_chasey said:pinno said:Wait a minute... TBP is going to stand in Labour held constituencies... and in the process potentially take Tory votes?
Very clever. Genius in fact.
It's mainly to hurt the Lib Dems.pinno said:Wait a minute... TBP is going to stand in Labour held constituencies... and in the process potentially take Tory votes?
Very clever. Genius in fact.
Let's face it, Labour aren't very 'remainy' are they?
Ah glorious first past the post. None of this would matter if the system was such that you could confidently vote for the party that best matches your political views.
TBP - Leave.
Labour - Leave.
Liberal - Remain.
Not sure how splitting a leave vote 3 ways will hurt the Liberals. More likely to help, assuming Brexit is the main decider.0 -
-
Farage likes to play games and create mischief.pinno said:Wait a minute... TBP is going to stand in Labour held constituencies... and in the process potentially take Tory votes?
Very clever. Genius in fact.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Ah. Still reads like they are splitting the leave vote. Not a good strategy in any marginal seats. Good!rick_chasey said:
In ld/tory remains seats brexit party are not standing, basically.pblakeney said:
Cons - Leave.rick_chasey said:pinno said:Wait a minute... TBP is going to stand in Labour held constituencies... and in the process potentially take Tory votes?
Very clever. Genius in fact.
It's mainly to hurt the Lib Dems.pinno said:Wait a minute... TBP is going to stand in Labour held constituencies... and in the process potentially take Tory votes?
Very clever. Genius in fact.
Let's face it, Labour aren't very 'remainy' are they?
Ah glorious first past the post. None of this would matter if the system was such that you could confidently vote for the party that best matches your political views.
TBP - Leave.
Labour - Leave.
Liberal - Remain.
Not sure how splitting a leave vote 3 ways will hurt the Liberals. More likely to help, assuming Brexit is the main decider.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Pretending it doesn't need any?surrey_commuter said:
The difference is that Japan has an immigration problemrick_chasey said:Stevo_666 said:
That is certainly a big issue for them as it will exacerbate their debt problem.surrey_commuter said:
I thought Japan’s central problem was demographicrick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years
Western Europe has the same demographic problems, only roughly the same distance behind the curve as their economies are vs Japan.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Double post.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
True, losing money by actively backing someone who is a proven liar with only their self-interest at heart is to be expected and there's definitely schadenfreude there.rick_chasey said:
Very difficult to be hugely sympathetic; it was obvious to a lot of people that this might happen.pross said:Brexit Party apparently refusing to refund the costs of the candidates they dropped. Lies and broken promises costing people money, sounds standard for Farage to me.
You would think it would send a warning to those who are still falling for his man of the people guff but they won't as they seem to revel in being conned.0 -
This is priceless.I’ve just gifted the Conservative party nearly two dozen seats and I did it because I believe in leave.
Now if they believed in leave what they would do is stand aside in some seats in Labour areas where the Conservative party has not won for 100 years and will never win.
Why the Tories were so scared of him I don't know.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
This is priceless.
I’ve just gifted the Conservative party nearly two dozen seats and I did it because I believe in leave.
Now if they believed in leave what they would do is stand aside in some seats in Labour areas where the Conservative party has not won for 100 years and will never win.
Why the Tories were so scared of him I don't know.
More his chat, no?
It’s on a weak spot for bojo0 -
They know that they do and already employ a lot of immigrants in the care sector. At least I though they did?rjsterry said:
Pretending it doesn't need any?surrey_commuter said:
The difference is that Japan has an immigration problemrick_chasey said:Stevo_666 said:
That is certainly a big issue for them as it will exacerbate their debt problem.surrey_commuter said:
I thought Japan’s central problem was demographicrick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years
Western Europe has the same demographic problems, only roughly the same distance behind the curve as their economies are vs Japan.
However, they need a great deal more!
0 -
Are you talking about Farage or Boris here?pross said:
True, losing money by actively backing someone who is a proven liar with only their self-interest at heart is to be expected and there's definitely schadenfreude there.rick_chasey said:
Very difficult to be hugely sympathetic; it was obvious to a lot of people that this might happen.pross said:Brexit Party apparently refusing to refund the costs of the candidates they dropped. Lies and broken promises costing people money, sounds standard for Farage to me.
You would think it would send a warning to those who are still falling for his man of the people guff but they won't as they seem to revel in being conned.
There's only one reason why Boris backed Brexit in the first place, was because he saw that he'd have a better chance of being PM if he did.
He was a europhile previously and let's not forget the 2 brexit articles he prepared for the Telegraph, one for and one against, before casting his dice.0 -
more realising that it needs a lot. Not only is their population aging but it is declining, imagine what that does to the outlook for domestic companies. Seems if you are geographically remote with a small immigrant population as you have no history of welcoming foreigners it is difficult to turn the taps on.rjsterry said:
Pretending it doesn't need any?surrey_commuter said:
The difference is that Japan has an immigration problemrick_chasey said:Stevo_666 said:
That is certainly a big issue for them as it will exacerbate their debt problem.surrey_commuter said:
I thought Japan’s central problem was demographicrick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years
Western Europe has the same demographic problems, only roughly the same distance behind the curve as their economies are vs Japan.0 -
From what I was reading last night it's still a sensitive subject. The recent policy changes are getting flack for being sold as "not an immigration policy" when that's clearly what they are.surrey_commuter said:
more realising that it needs a lot. Not only is their population aging but it is declining, imagine what that does to the outlook for domestic companies. Seems if you are geographically remote with a small immigrant population as you have no history of welcoming foreigners it is difficult to turn the taps on.rjsterry said:
Pretending it doesn't need any?surrey_commuter said:
The difference is that Japan has an immigration problemrick_chasey said:Stevo_666 said:
That is certainly a big issue for them as it will exacerbate their debt problem.surrey_commuter said:
I thought Japan’s central problem was demographicrick_chasey said:
Japan is more comparable to the U.K. than Greece - at least for now - for any number of reasons.Stevo_666 said:
I think you're being a bit optimistic. Our GDP is around £2 trillion so 10% of that is £200 billion. Which is less than the cost of the Labour nationalisation promise for starters. Latest estimates of Labour's total spending plans are up to £1.2 trillion extra over 5 years.rjsterry said:
I've found some more figures: make that 75 years. Seems pretty sustainable to me. Greece's receipts are similar to ours (as % of GDP) but their spending is 10-12% of GDP higher than ours. If Javid or McDonnell announced spending of an extra £700bn per year then we might be close to a Greek situation.Stevo_666 said:
You've just explained how we have got to where we are in terms of debt.rjsterry said:
And yet government spending has averaged about 40% of GDP while tax receipts average 35% of GDP for at least the last 50 years.Stevo_666 said:
Sorry, but it is so obvious to anyone with a knowledge and understanding of finance and economics that a country cannot just go on building up debt indefinitely that I'm really not sure what there is to debate or why you are in denial about it.rick_chasey said:
Not the ones I’ve come across tbf.Stevo_666 said:
There are plenty of respected economists who disagree with his view. The EU also seems to disagree and they are usually right, aren't they?rick_chasey said:surrey_commuter said:
so this whole hypothesis is based upon the assumption that inflation will not return to it's historical ratesrick_chasey said:If truth is the first casualty of war, social science is the first casualty of election campaigns. So it was with Sajid Javid’s speech yesterday. He claimed that Labour will tax everybody more, “saddle the next generation with debt”, “ruin your finances” and would be “letting prices run wild in the shops.”
All this is silly hyperbole.
I say so not just because, as Simon says. Labour’s spending plans are more sustainable than the Tories because it will not inflict a damaging Brexit upon the economy.
Instead, there are two other reasons why Javid is wrong.Javid
One is that developed economies are resilient. They just don’t tip swiftly from prosperity to ruin. For one thing, high debt (even if we get it) is no barrier (pdf) to decent economic growth. Also, as Eric Lonergan says, “inflation is truly dead, and policy makers don’t need to worry about it.” Governments and central banks have struggled to raise inflation despite trying. It would be odd if Mr McDonnell had powers unknown to the ECB or Bank of Japan. And we must remember the finding of John Landon-Lane and Peter Robertson, that government policies don’t usually change trend growth by very much – a result that is comforting as well as dispiriting.
Adam Smith was bang right. There is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Countries can cope with bad policies. Those on the right who say the UK (well, actually Britain) can survive leaving the EU therefore have a point. But you cannot easily claim that the economy is resilient to changes in trading rules but ultra-vulnerable to moderate differences in fiscal policy and taxes.
There is, however, another reason why economies aren’t ruined by bad policy. It’s that such policies don’t persist. They get reversed. Examples of this include Mitterrand’s “austerity turn” in 1983 and Syriza's acceptance of EU-imposed austerity in 2015. But we have also seen examples under the Tories. Thatcher abandoned M3 targets and fiscal austerity in the mid-80s: cyclically adjusted net borrowing rose from a small surplus in 1981-82 to 2.8% of GDP in 1983-84. And Major pulled the UK out of the ERM in 1992.
Liberal democratic capitalism, then, selects against bad policies. Ones which damage the economy egregiously get reversed. If Labour’s policies are as bad as Javid claims (arguendo!) the correct inference is not that Labour will ruin the nation, but that Mr McDonnell will disappoint his supporters as so many of his predecessors have done.
Within reason. Japan hasn’t managed to do it. All the scaremongering about QE hasn’t resulted in it.
The guy’s a well respected economist. Knows more than we do.
German policy is a political choice no one based on economics. Tonnes of studies into why that’s the case if you can be arsed to read them.
See Greece for an example of a country that went too far. And watch Italy for a country that is headed that way.
But they're not.
And then there's the assumption that borrowing rates will stay the same - whereas they are likely to rise if Labour gets in. And that our income will stay the same which its unlikely to with Labour's business unfriendly policies.
It is not a viable long term strategy.
Being Greece without the sunshine is not a good prospect - but if you really want it, vote Labour.
That’s deep into double annual GDP in debt and they can’t get inflation however much they try.
In so many ways the Western world has followed Japan in how its economies have behaved - just a decade later.
Dillow understands this better than most having been chief economist of a Japanese bank for 10 years
Western Europe has the same demographic problems, only roughly the same distance behind the curve as their economies are vs Japan.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The backlash from his former candidates is delicious 😋pross said:
True, losing money by actively backing someone who is a proven liar with only their self-interest at heart is to be expected and there's definitely schadenfreude there.rick_chasey said:
Very difficult to be hugely sympathetic; it was obvious to a lot of people that this might happen.pross said:Brexit Party apparently refusing to refund the costs of the candidates they dropped. Lies and broken promises costing people money, sounds standard for Farage to me.
You would think it would send a warning to those who are still falling for his man of the people guff but they won't as they seem to revel in being conned.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I can't quite comprehend why the Tories are growing in their popularity - from the election trackers - since BJ became PM its just been growing - Labour around static and the rest on the decline - or next to nothing anyway.
I suppose it's just not reflecting the FPTP results ... doesn't help when you want something other than the status quo in your own constituency ...0 -
The sad conlcusion from this (and Trump) is that what they are doing works.slowbike said:I can't quite comprehend why the Tories are growing in their popularity - from the election trackers - since BJ became PM ...
I'm really, really trying hard not to fall into "the public are all stupid" elitism, but it gets harder by the day. I have read plenty of studies saying that people can actually see through their bs but still choose to vote for them anyway: what is it about their view of the current situation and their hopes for the future that tells them that amoral, malevolent clowns are the way forward?0 -
Or - perhaps it's what the other parties are doing or promising to do really don't work?bompington said:
The sad conlcusion from this (and Trump) is that what they are doing works.slowbike said:I can't quite comprehend why the Tories are growing in their popularity - from the election trackers - since BJ became PM ...
0 -
I may be wrong but I think that the willful overlooking of so much real shite is a symptom of something a bit more than just "the opposition's pretty rubbish too".slowbike said:
Or - perhaps it's what the other parties are doing or promising to do really don't work?bompington said:
The sad conlcusion from this (and Trump) is that what they are doing works.slowbike said:I can't quite comprehend why the Tories are growing in their popularity - from the election trackers - since BJ became PM ...
I mean, the wholesale "doesn't bother me none" when it comes to blatant lying, criminality, gutter-level personal behaviour...
0 -
The theory I am currently subscribing to is that in eras where wages stagnate/drop (and we're still below 2008 levels), people begin to focus on their own interests much more as the political decisions become zero sum - as there is no growth. How else do you improve your lot? Take from the other lot.bompington said:
The sad conlcusion from this (and Trump) is that what they are doing works.slowbike said:I can't quite comprehend why the Tories are growing in their popularity - from the election trackers - since BJ became PM ...
I'm really, really trying hard not to fall into "the public are all stupid" elitism, but it gets harder by the day. I have read plenty of studies saying that people can actually see through their bs but still choose to vote for them anyway: what is it about their view of the current situation and their hopes for the future that tells them that amoral, malevolent clowns are the way forward?
In that, more combative mindset, the ends - the lying, the cheating, the grease - justify their means.0 -
The GE is quite straight forward.
Vote for a party run by wealthy white men who will be totally unaffected by any downturn in the economy, but will honour a democratic decision made by the UK public.
Vote for a party of socialists with the mental capacity of krill, that still subscribe to the 'put a fiver in the working man's back pocket' policy who also won't be personally affected by a downturn in the UK economy.
Or vote for a liberal elite socialist party that want to go against democracy who won't be personally affected by a downturn in the UK economy.
And in Scotland you can vote for a load of sour faced nationalists that don't understand the word No.
Great choice.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
-
If I remember correctly then Trump's speech/rhetoric is pitched at the level of a twelve year old. If you assume that a very large % will vote for a wheelie bin with the correctly coloured rosette then it is entirely feasible that there are enough voters with a mental age of 12 (or lower) to decide the outcome of a national election.bompington said:
The sad conlcusion from this (and Trump) is that what they are doing works.slowbike said:I can't quite comprehend why the Tories are growing in their popularity - from the election trackers - since BJ became PM ...
I'm really, really trying hard not to fall into "the public are all stupid" elitism, but it gets harder by the day. I have read plenty of studies saying that people can actually see through their bs but still choose to vote for them anyway: what is it about their view of the current situation and their hopes for the future that tells them that amoral, malevolent clowns are the way forward?0 -
-
They aren't getting the high profile coverage from what I've noticed. Conservative, Labour, Brexit party are all over the news. Times app has 6 stories on Conservatives, 4 on Labour, 4 on Farage. 0 on LD. Even the negative ones (which they mostly are for everyone) give the impression of importance.0
-
They have been since the beginning of October - I wonder what they announced then - as the revoke brexit came out mid Sept....rick_chasey said:LDs trending downwards in the polls currently.
0 -
I honestly don't think they've even bought into their signature policy themselves either. It's basically "we want to stop Brexit without a vote if we win, but we aren't going to win, so really we want another referendum".0
-
Maybe someone should start a Lib Dem thread.
Do they have any other policies?0 -
Their only known policy fits nicely on this thread.TheBlueBean said:Maybe someone should start a Lib Dem thread.
Do they have any other policies?
They want to get the Tories out. Does that count? And they don't like Corbyn.0 -
I think the line, FWIW, should be "with regard to Brexit, we are the party who actually represent the political desire to remain. If you feel that it's in the UK's or indeed your own interest to remain in the EU, then we are the party who represent that, and no real other English party does."kingstongraham said:I honestly don't think they've even bought into their signature policy themselves either. It's basically "we want to stop Brexit without a vote if we win, but we aren't going to win, so really we want another referendum".
I sort of don't get why people are hammering LDs on exactly *what they would do with a majority in parliament* since it's not up to them if they get one or not.
It is however, up to them to represent certain political interests and persuasions and i think, generally, what they are representing is quite clear.
In my mind anyway.0
