the snap general election thread

Fella

nic_c wrote: »

I can't see May lasting until 2022. Two schools of thought - a quick coup whilst brexit is in early stages or one once the two years is up.

I think May will go very soon, she's too much of a damaged brand & there's blood in the water.

Best-case scenario for the Tories is they find a unifying candidate who wins a bloodless battle for the leadership. They can't afford to tear themselves apart over a leadership struggle. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't.

Surprised Leadsome is as big as 100/1 to be next leader. She was stronger on Brexit than May & pulled out early & relatively intact from the last leadership fight. Might be worth a flutter.

posh*spice

Fella wrote: »

Wow, is there a single Labour supporter who isn't going to politicize what happened this week?

To link austerity to this fire is despicable & nonsensical.

Perhaps you should wait until the official enquiry the point the finger of blame?

Of course since Labour supporters are desperately hoping this will lead to another election none of them have any intention of waiting for the enquiry. The tragic deaths this week appear to be merely another weapon to be used in their dirty fight.

Horrific stuff.

Kensington and Chealsea council have £300 million in reserves - so this has absolutely nothing to do with austerity. Full stop. End of story.

Chrysalis

GreatApe wrote: »

The UK isn't particularly low tax or low government spending

We sit roughly on the middle of the USA(35% GDP) and France (55% GDP) and are roughly on oar with the Germans

What's more France is flattered by things like national ownership of EDF.
So toy couldn't make the argument that the UK government should increase its share of the economy by 10% to be more like France and that would lead to more doctors or nurses or etc. The way France is able to have a higher % is that it owns necessities like electricity and gas grids. There would be no fundamental increase in productivity if the state owned the utilities (but the % of the economy as the state would rise)


Also I think the Tories have done most the heavy lifting over the last 7 years. The next 7 years would see the proceeds of growth go to higher wages more state more spending and lower taxes rather than concentrating primarily on reducing the unsustainable deficit

Also right now we have zero unemployment (check the unemployment figure for those out of work for more than 6months its about 1%) there is no slack for the state to go on a spending spree. Government should spend more in recessions but not during the boom phase which we have started to go into

the official employment figures are a joke, it doesnt include those not in the system, and there is a lot not in the system as the work programme and its sanctions have had many simply closing their JSA claims.

Chrysalis

economic wrote: »

I don't know much about politics but can't someone like tony Blair come back to lead labour instead?

why? it is good now we have a proper left wing labour, not a tory lite party.

Chrysalis

kabayiri wrote: »

One of the reasons for privatization was to absolve the government of the responsibility of long term investment and planning for utilities.

The companies now have to raise the capital themselves.

I can understand why the government would do this. They might foresee major investment needs ahead, and unfortunately Joe Public doesn't value £50bn spent on upgrading things like a load of subterranean wires and pylons (the grid). They demand that government money is spent on social housing and NHS and more obvious signs.

The public is manipulated by the media.

but there has most definitely not been 50billion worth of private investment on these privatised utilities, never mind "net" investment after profit. Net investment is actually a negative number, selling these utilities was not about avoiding pressures to invest in future, but more for a quick bit of cash to help in the short term and also to sell something cheap to the private sector for them to profit from (corruption).

Joe_Horner

Rinoa wrote: »

According to Phillip Hammond this morning the cladding on the flats was illegal.

Nothing to do with austerity then.

No, of course a local authority doing a prettification refurb to make the view nicer for the posh houses, and doing it through the lowest bidder who (possibly*) used illegal cladding rather than paying a little more for the right stuff in order to save money is nothing to do with austerity.



* as far as I can find, PE core cladding isn't illegal thanks to us not following the lead of other countries and banning it on high-rise buildings but I could be wrong.

Alternatively, of course , Hammond could be trying to shift the blame from cost-cutting and inadequate regulation onto the construction company.

Fella

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, of course a local authority doing a prettification refurb to make the view nicer for the posh houses

See what you did there. A nice little Corbynista technique. Casually drop in lines like that wherever possible in the hope it'll eventually become the accepted truth.

All of the reports I saw before this was politicized said that the main reason for the cladding was improved insulation. It stands to reason they would try to do that with something that ideally made the building look nicer.

But I guess to mention that part would make it sound like the cladding, whatever tragic consequences it may (or may not, we still don't know) have led to, was actually done for the tenant's benefit. And that narrative doesn't play well with the people who are only interested in telling a version of events where all Tories are evil.

antrobus

Chrysalis wrote: »

the official employment figures are a joke, it doesnt include those not in the system...

You have no idea of what you are on about.

The official employment and indeed unemployment figures are based on the Labour Force Survey, it doesn't exclude anybody.

Chrysalis wrote: »

..and there is a lot not in the system as the work programme and its sanctions have had many simply closing their JSA claims.

You clearly do not understand that there is a difference between unemployment and claimant count. They are two different things.

And economic inactivity is something else again.

Chrysalis wrote: »

why? it is good now we have a proper left wing labour, not a tory lite party.

I do hope that this "proper left wing labour" of which you speak has a better understanding of basic economic data than you do. Otherwise we are all going to be in trouble if they ever form a government.:)

Rinoa

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Alternatively, of course , Hammond could be trying to shift the blame from cost-cutting and inadequate regulation onto the construction company.

If Phillip Hammond went on national TV and said this stuff was illegal and it wasn't, we'd certainly have known about it by now.

You just can't accept it wasn't the Tories fault.

antrobus

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, of course a local authority doing a prettification refurb to make the view nicer for the posh houses, ...

That's b0ll0x, quite frankly.

The budget for the refursbishment of Grenfel was £10.3m.

The scope of works included the following:

• New heating and hot water
• New double glazed windows
• Thermal cladding of the building
• Smoke/safety and ventilation works
• Improved foyer and door entry
• Associated environmental works
• 9x new hidden homes
• New nursery
• New boxing club
• Landscaping improvements

You can find the report by the director of housing of K&C via this Grauniad report.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/long-builder-chain-for-grenfell-a-safety-and-accountability-issue

Joe_Horner wrote: »

..Alternatively, of course , Hammond could be trying to shift the blame from cost-cutting and inadequate regulation onto the construction company.

Both the Grauniad and the Daily Mail agree on one thing. That the cost of the fire resistant panels was only about £6,250 more than the cheaper kind. That is, to be blunt, a piddling amount of money in a £10.3m refurbishment project. Whoever made that decision, or knew about it, whether it's the council, KCTMO, the project managers, the contractors Rydon or Harley, or whoever, should be f in well prosecuted. Gross negligence manslaughter. You can get life for that.