the snap general election thread

Thrugelmir

HornetSaver wrote: »

I'd be a hypocrite to be smug about this prediction being wrong, given my view that smugness and confidence from those who felt Corbyn couldn't possibly win are directly responsible for the seat tally we currently see in the House of Commons

Corbyn didn't win. Seat count is the way our democracy works. Until it changes that's the way it is.

Even Kinnock won more seats in the 1992 election to keep matters in perspective. He resigned. Corbyn appears to be totally intent to hold onto power as much as everything else.

Chrysalis

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It comes down to whether you believe government intervention is more efficient than the free market.

There doesn't appear to be any good example of a centralised economy except those backed by oil, but even then they're now struggling if you're up to date on your world affairs.



Centralised economies, fixed wages, fixed prices, regulation up to the eyeballs doesn't work, has never worked and will never work.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=VEF&to=USD&view=10Y

It seems if you support a free market, if you're on the right or on the centre you're evil. Far from it, if we went full on socialist as many appear to want we will inevitably end up in the same situation as the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc... the closest shining example of socialist policies working is Norway, which is a capitalist, free market economy with some socialist ideas knocking around, backed up by the black stuff.

The NHS is a socialist idea, as is the welfare state. They still exist and the British people continue to want them to exist, but if you go too far you're going to ruin what we already have. Not through cuts, but through ruining the bedrock on which they're built and funded. Someone always has to pay, and when the individual's priority is the individual (which it is, no denying that) those with wealth that is being stolen at the point of a gun (taxation) beyond a reasonable level will look to protect themselves and rightly so.

Your example about the minimum wage having little effect on the cost of goods is so narrow. The cost of goods will increase because of wages rises at the employer in question but also the suppliers to that employer will raise their prices also, so the impact will be two fold as they (the supplier) will also need to raise the cost of goods to pay more. The minimum wage doesn't lift people out of poverty, it just brings the middle class closer towards the bottom. This effect can be mirrored across every industry, energy, water, manufacturing, services, financial, etc... everything rises and has a knock on effect on those industries they interact with.

The left, socialists, communists, are all well meaning people. There is no doubt about that, but calling for such programmes now whilst we cannot even balance a government budget is very much the archetypal millenial: "I want it now even if I have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul". That leads to one destination, and it's not utopia.

It does work when used selectively.

You give the free market a chance, if it fails then you step in, either via regulation or state ownership.

e.g. for anyone to claim the free market works on the housing rental market must be a lunatic.

It works for electricity/gas domestic supply, worked for royal mail, works for council housing.

Generally free market is good for luxury non essentials, centralised = good for essentials.

Wages are only a fraction of the overall cost of producing goods, any affect on price increases is lower than the wage increase itself. I even posted an example earlier.

What wont work is not increasing wages in line with inflation, how can people spend more when they dont have the ability to spend? that is nonsensical. Capitalism in its current form only keeps going due to money injection (supply of credit), as in its natural form it would just seize up. But without wage increases the amount of credit needing to be injection needs to be increased which of course raises inflation further.

In short injection of money has a larger affect on inflation than wage increases. Wage increases is not favoured because those at the top of the pyramid dont like it.

HornetSaver

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Corbyn didn't win. Seat count is the way our democracy works. Until it changes that's the way it is.

Even Kinnock won more seats in the 1992 election to keep matters in perspective. He resigned. Corbyn appears to be totally intent to hold onto power as much as everything else.

Putting aside the fact that your spectacles are so heavily coated in blue paint that you failed to read what I actually said, for the time being at least.

Kinnock resigned because Major won a majority.

A better comparison is 1974, where Heath did not resign because it seemed highly unlikely that anyone could form a Government and therefore that a new election was highly likely. When he lost that one he was soon on his way.

The momentum, pun not intended, is clearly with Labour, to the extent that a General Election now is not a desireable option. The Parliamentary arithmetic, taking into account the preference of the smaller parties, is in the Conservatives' favour. But the rationale for the election was that a slim majority was not enough for Brexit. Well there's no majority at all now, which is quite clearly the worst possible result - worse than either party winning a hefty majority.

Thrugelmir

HornetSaver wrote: »

Putting aside the fact that your spectacles are so heavily coated in blue paint that you failed to read what I actually said, for the time being at least.

Kinnock resigned because Major won a majority.

My spectacles aren't blue. Merely pointing out the facts and the spin that's emanating. Corbyn has an uphill battle to regain those lost Scottish supporters.

Arklight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Corbyn didn't win. Seat count is the way our democracy works. Until it changes that's the way it is.

Even Kinnock won more seats in the 1992 election to keep matters in perspective. He resigned. Corbyn appears to be totally intent to hold onto power as much as everything else.

Or, to put that in perspective, Corbyn won 12.9 million votes from a standing start, a 40% share of the vote, and added 30 seats, many taken off the Tories in their heartlands. With the entire of the mainstream media and most of the Parliamentary Labour Party against him.

The Cons got 13.7 million votes, 42.4% of the vote, and lost 13 seats. With absolutely every advantage.

On average the Tories needed 43,000 votes per seat, Labour needed 49,000.

Th DUP, who are now slated to make this coalition of right wing evangelism, have 10 seats which they got with less than 300,000 votes. Or 29,000 votes per seat.

People are willing to swallow first past the post, up to a point. The DUP forming a unison of bigotry with the least popular Tory PM since Thatcher is just a bit beyond that point.

There will be another election within 12 months and I know where my money is going.

Mr_Costcutter

I see the latest opinion polls are predicting Corbyn will be measuring up for curtains at number 10 by xmas.

mayonnaise

Conrad wrote: »

Cant wait to see how the Remainers cope with May winning a bomb proof Brexit mandate.

Coping very well, thanks for the concern.

michaels

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

I see the latest opinion polls are predicting Corbyn will be measuring up for curtains at number 10 by xmas.

I can not make any sense of this. Are you suggesting that there will be another election before Christmas? How do opinion polls predict this even if they do predict that Labour will win the most votes? It seems strange that the supporter of a party that ws 15% behind in the opinon polls before the last election was called should now take opiinion polls as gospel.

Thrugelmir

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

I see the latest opinion polls are predicting Corbyn will be measuring up for curtains at number 10 by xmas.

Rather old to be considering a new career.

BucksLady

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

I see the latest opinion polls are predicting Corbyn will be measuring up for curtains at number 10 by xmas.

Yes, I've been listening to a discussion on the radio evaluating the latest data. It wouldn't surprise me to be honest.