Labour voters hate him because he's a Tory. Tories hate him because he's not rabidly pro-hard Brexit.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
UK PoliticsERA |OT1| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos! PART 2
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
- Status
Labour voters hate him because he's a Tory. Tories hate him because he's not rabidly pro-hard Brexit.
How is it still so high for the conservatives, though. Have these people not been paying attention?
It's because they're the conservatives. Despite disaster after disaster, they're still "the party of the economy".
Plus they've been banging the 'Corbyn's a communist who'd wreck our economy' line for the last year or so, and it simply has caught on for some.
Doesn't help when you have certain negative stories either exaggerated to harm Labour (eg. bitch-gate or ghetto boy) or downplayed/ignored for the Conservatives side (40 MPs accused of assault vs 1 or two Labour yet they got equal focus).
I mean the BBC has made the decision to not cover the 120,000 austerity deaths story because they have been advised that the company isn't reliable. Even though they have covered them before and even did a joint study with them.
When you have most of the press deciding the narrative of how the government and labour are seen it's extremely hard to fight against it. It's partly why Labour have stalled and Tories haven't dropped in the polls, because they aren't forced to be more equal like they were during the election window.
I mean the BBC has made the decision to not cover the 120,000 austerity deaths story because they have been advised that the company isn't reliable. Even though they have covered them before and even did a joint study with them.
When you have most of the press deciding the narrative of how the government and labour are seen it's extremely hard to fight against it. It's partly why Labour have stalled and Tories haven't dropped in the polls, because they aren't forced to be more equal like they were during the election window.
The age breakdown is far more telling about what's going on.
Take out the over 65s and it's 33% May/Hammond, 31% Corbyn/McDonnell
After the bullshit that the Tories pulled in the last election, over 65 still trust them.The age breakdown is far more telling about what's going on.
Take out the over 65s and it's 33% May/Hammond, 31% Corbyn/McDonnell
No.
Most people don't, most of the time.
For a lot of people, Labour caused the 2008 global financial crisis by spending too much money on immigrant chavs, and then the Tories came in and stopped us from becoming Greece by implementing Austerity, a wildly successful policy to which there was no alternative because we needed to balance the books after maxing out the nations credit card.
It's infuriating, but understandable.
It's not only since 2008, it's been this way for as long as I can remember. Tories = perceived/reported to be the best with the economy, Labour = careless spenders and lovers of red tape.
The over 65s do really well out of a Conservative government though. Where everyone else has had to 'tighten their belts' since 2008, pensioners have remained almost completely untouched. The combination of a lot of them having generous private pensions (that the next generation won't have due to them being completely unaffordable), and the triple-lock on the state pension means they're almost entirely insulated from the economic failings of the country. Between 2010 and 2016, pensioners' income grew at double the rate of the average worker, and the gap is only going to get more pronounced, with wages slipping and inflation rising.
Thats not just the Tories:
Stuff like this is what makes the Lib Dems a total joke - a party supposedly appealing to the centre, but who in reality are only ever happy to side with the Tories. Wolves in sheeps clothing
McDonnell would wreck the economy. That's not a controversial statement, just because it comes from people and parties that you don't like. When you seize (or even merely threaten to seize) companies, paying less than the market value, then you kill all investment into the country. Ask Venezuela how that one ends up.
By the same sentiment, the Lib Dems should just fold into Labour, right? Shouldn't be critical?
By the same sentiment, the Lib Dems should just fold into Labour, right? Shouldn't be critical?
They should carry on their slide into electoral irrelevance as they're a pointless party voted for by pointless people .
Ah, so its Venezuelan socialism now, not Maoist, sorry its just hard to keep up with which branch of dangerous far left socialism the Labour party are supposed to be at the moment. Looking forward to it being Stalinist at some point next week
Criticism it great provided that it is either productive, or fair
Plus, this critical streak seems to go out of the window whenever the Tories are concerned
Did you miss McDonnell stating that he'd pay shareholders less than market value for some companies? Seizing private assets is exactly what happened in Venezuela.
This is utter, utter codswallop. You've literally just made that up. It isn't based in fact, at all.
If Diane Abbott had said that we wouldn't hear the end of it from old white men for about two years. The Chancellor says it and no one bats an eyelid.
Media narratives and the right's double standards eh?
Wait uh, he what?
Godwin's law and all, but that's almost literally from the Nazi playbook.
I hate the Tories but even I can see that was taken out of context. He was talking about "no unemployed" short hand typists due to the computer revolution, as an analogy for the automation resolution. Not "no unemployed" in total.
He's wrong of course, since there are lots of unemployed as a result of the country's switch from manufacturing jobs to computer-based services jobs. His laissez-faire attitude to automation is probably more dangerous than some hyperbole over the reduction in unemployed.
He's wrong of course, since there are lots of unemployed as a result of the country's switch from manufacturing jobs to computer-based services jobs. His laissez-faire attitude to automation is probably more dangerous than some hyperbole over the reduction in unemployed.
There's more than one way to nationalise a business/industry. As long as you are clear about what you are nationalising and why then there is no reason it should create a wider chain reaction.
For example, putting in your manifesto that you will re-nationalise Royal Mail is unlikely to have a significant impact on investment in the food and drink sector.
I'm not saying I think that having them in charge would be great for the economy, only that your assessment of that scenario wouldn't look out of place on the front page of the Daily Mail.
Link is paywalled so I can't see his exact quotes in this, but nationalising industry is not inherently Venezuela
? I wasn't posting it as a statistic, just how the Lib Dems are coming across - they're spending far more time attacking Labour then they do the Tories, which shouldn't be the case considering that the Tories are the ones in charge at the moment, and also seem to be entirely run by absolute nutters
The economist and financial times seem to disagree. Don't get me wrong, neither likes the prospect of what Labour would do... but "wrecking" the economy?
No.
Corbyn has also made calls before for empty private homes to be seized.
It's as almost as if the argument against nationalisation were complete and utter bollocks.
You really don't see a problem with the Government just seizing private property at whatever price they want....? Jesus christ.
What particularly galling is that MTR was set up in Hong Kong when it was still a British colony and no one from the UK government learned any lessons from them over the past 42 years.
If they are empty I don't see the problem, houses are for living in. Not to launder money or to be used as a savings account.
If they are empty I don't see the problem, houses are for living in. Not to launder money or to be used as a savings account.
Yes, but things like that would destroy confidence in the market. There are better ways of achieving that - like a Land Value Tax for example.
If the economy was working for most people, Labour wouldn't be ahead in the polls.
Also it's hard to genuinely give a fuck about potential falls in business investment due to some mild socialism when Brexit is a thing that's about to happen.
Well, I'd prefer it was the workers themselves seizing private property in a glorious socialist revolution, but a Labour government doing it is a decent second place.
Well, we need that too, and to end inheritance, and otherwise wage an all out assault on accumulated wealth.
One step at a time like.
Also it's hard to genuinely give a fuck about potential falls in business investment due to some mild socialism when Brexit is a thing that's about to happen.
Well, I'd prefer it was the workers themselves seizing private property in a glorious socialist revolution, but a Labour government doing it is a decent second place.
Well, we need that too, and to end inheritance, and otherwise wage an all out assault on accumulated wealth.
One step at a time like.
The economics of Negative Equity would disagree with you.
Edit:
This, by the way, is why I knew what to search for so quickly - because I remember that recession.
I believe there is historical precedent in the British nationalisation of the mines, the railways and so on. Please leave your fainting couch behind, it won't be necessary.
Yeah, I forgot that current mortgage holders would get fucked over.
In the interim I think more action could be done on vacant homes, perhaps charging extremely high levels of council tax until they are occupied.
The owner of the home can either pay the high rate or let a council tenant live there and they wont have to pay any council tax on the property.
Yeah, this seems win-win - council makes money out of an empty home (perhaps put to a specific "new build" fund to pay for more affordable housing), or someone needing a home is housed.
Unfortunately, never going to happen. Not only is it a very Left-Wing policy, but the perception of council tenants is so far down the drain that most landlords would rather bulldoze their house than let someone like that in there.
Tbf we could probably solve both the homelessness problem and reduce the cost of running food banks if we turned the rich into soylent green and turned their homes into council flats.
Only ones I can find were from him suggesting it as a way to house victims of the Grenfell tower fire. Which was a genuinely great idea and one the government should have come up with.
Source?
Only ones I can find were from him suggesting it as a way to house victims of the Grenfell tower fire. Which was a genuinely great idea and one the government should have come up with.
Last edited:
Department of International Trade has been lobbying the Brazilian government on behalf of BP and Shell.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/11/19/brazil-shell-bp-greg-hands-liam-fox/
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2017/11/19/brazil-shell-bp-greg-hands-liam-fox/
Sorry - how do we get from this quote and Corbyn wanting to house the victims of a tower fire in nearby vacant mansions to "literally Venezuela"
Siding with the Tories is wanting to stop the Blues/block Brexit because he criticises Labour?
What?
Also it was not Corbyn calling for the seizing of private homes - it was an unusually daft comment from David Lammy, who should know better.
Corbyn/McDonnell policy is mostly associated with big numbers that don't add up but get folks accused of Fake News for criticising. A lot of the money they want to spend would be on re-nationalising industries without any real plan for what they'd do after that, too.
Labour is in a barmy place right now for quite a lot of reasons, really. A moderate but expensive manifesto at the last election, a crippled Tory party and only evidence of a slight actual lead that would leave them far from solo power now and they face the risk of a de-May'd Tory party resurging, especially in Brexit-y places Labour cannot afford to lose. They, and by that I mean Labour, would be in a better spot right now if they had a leadership that was less hard left as it would be more attractive to the centrists and even remainers on the right who are fed up with the Tories.
Last edited:
- Status